I move—

seconded.

I should like the Prime Minister to tell us whether this is the ordinary suspension and does not involve that we should be called upon unnecessarily to sit beyond eleven o’clock. I know on previous occasions towards the end of the session we have suspended the eleven o’clock rule, but not because the Government wanted us to do more work than we should do in the ordinary way I think the Prime Minister might tell us now what work the Government intends to drop. It is a very heavy programme before us and if we are to end this month before the 21st, as the Prime Minister held out a hope to us, a good deal will have to be dropped Take the Precious Stones Bill. We have made very little progress with that and no vital principle has been touched in committee yet. It is a very lengthy Bill. Then there is the Native Administration Bill a very important one, which has come from the Select Committee and which no doubt will lead to a good deal of discussion. The Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill is still in committee and will probably take a good deal of time still. There are the various financial measures which are sure to take up a good deal of time. There are the two Indian Bills before us still neither of which has yet been read a second time. And so on. I could go on mentioning a number of other measures. Our Order Paper is immensely overcrowded and I see no chance of our getting through the work unless there is a slaughter of innocents and unless the Prime Minister can give us the assurance that we will not be called upon to deal with all this heavy work The House I am sure would like to know from the Prime Minister what are the intentions and whether he intends going on with this full programme. The Flag Bill is before the Select Committee and may also lead to a good deal of debate still when it comes back to the House. It would be convenient to members to know what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the legislative programme for the rest of the session.

May I say that the Order Paper looks far more formidable than it really is. There are perhaps three measures or two measures which may take time. The one is the Flag Bill, but I am still optimistic enough to think that that will not take so much time. Then the other is the Precious Stones Bill. Well, the Precious Stones Bill is a measure which I think all of us feel should go through. Another important one, but certainly not one which I take it is going to keep the House long, will be the Native Administration Bill, which is out of committee and has been discussed fully at the second reading and about the provisions of which I believe there is not going to be much dispute. These are the three most important measures.

What about the Asiatic Agreement Bill?

Then there are the two Asiatic Bills, one only of which has anything which is contentious, and I believe there are only one or two clauses which are contentious, but that I think the Minister of the Interior wants to go through. It is difficult to say how long this will take because of the Precious Stones Bill, but I take it the Precious Stones Bill should hardly take more than five days to see my hon. friend through.

I should think much less.

So what we have here I do not think can take us more than a fortnight at the utmost. But there are various other measures, and now I would like to ask my hon. friend to give me time till to-morrow and I shall indicate which of these measures we had better drop. I may say that the real intention in suspending this rule is that we shall not have a thing held over when we have almost finished it. But of course I do not want to undertake that under special circumstances it might not be used for the purpose of getting hon. members sometimes to curtail a little their discussion.

The sword of Damocles.

But I can assure hon. members that I am certainly not going to use that in any arbitrary way but I hope in a very moderate way and in a manner which I hope will be approved of by the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

I should like to have a little information from the Minister about this matter because I am in rather a difficult position. The Minister is at the end of the session introducing a brand new important Bill with reference to important railway extensions. The Bill which the Minister proposes does not only deal with the extension of the Transvaal line to the border of Rhodesia, but also inside Rhodesia. We thought that with a view to the fairly large railway programme which the Government has left no new important and expensive railway construction would be undertaken by the Government. We expose ourselves to a good deal of criticism on account of the delay in the building of railways which we instructed the Government to build and the Government agreed to. I should therefore like a little information about the necessity of this brand new programme. We hear every day that the loan fund is not sufficient to complete the existing programme, but if the new programme which the Minister now proposes is carried out we shall have still further delay. Does not the Minister think the present scheme can stand over?

In reply to the hon. member’s speech, I just want to say that he can raise the points better at the second reading. He will see that these are all special cases, and the House can debate it at the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 17th June.

I take it that Clause 25 was passed last time, but I find no mention in the minutes of it.

When an amendment is proposed—

Thank you, but now I do not know where we stopped, whether at Clause 27 or at Clause 26.

We are now at Clause 28.

On Clause 28,

I move—

1. (1) There shall be deposited for public inspection at the office of the mining commissioner—
   1. (a) ill the case of a mine or mining area a diagram framed by a land surveyor and approved by the Surveyor-General showing the dimensions and boundaries thereof; and
   2. (b) in the case of an alluvial digging a sketch plan showing approximately the dimensions and boundaries thereof.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 29,

I move—

The object of this amendment is to obviate the position that has arisen in Lichtenburg, to prevent the cutting up which has taken place there. It will save further cutting up as far as these claims are concerned and secure to the owner the right he is entitled to have. I would suggest to the Minister of Mines and Industries that this is the proper place to move this amendment. Had we had this amendment in, the Minister would have been saved a great deal of trouble as far as Lichtenburg is concerned. Without this clause it is practically impossible for the Bill to function. The Minister proposes a similar amendment with the same restrictions later on.

My answer to the amendment of the hon. member is that it is the old provision in Act No. 15 of 1919. In view of the provisions of Clause 20 it is entirely unnecessary.

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

On Clause 29,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I move—

I move—

It reads that the Governor-General can make such provision in the proclamation deproclaiming any ground as may seem desirable to him, for the prevention of further prospecting and digging for precious stones on the land so deproclaimed. When a farm has once been proclaimed and exploited and the diggers have finished with it so that it is time for the farm to be deproclaimed, then it is quite unnecessary to have a provision prohibiting the owner from further prospecting or doing further digging on the farm. When such a farm is worked out it is necessary to place such a servitude on it. It may later be discovered that small pieces of ground were not worked out and this provision places an unnecessary servitude on the farm.

The reason for the clause is that owners sometimes come to the Government asking for proclamation, and hardly has their request been granted when they ask for deproclamation. If proclamation and deproclamation can continue in this way then it is another method by which the owner can increase his owner’s rights in an artificial way. When a farm of 5,000 morgen is proclaimed and the owner has obtained 250 owner’s and discoverer’s claims, and the farm is thereafter deproclaimed, then when it is again proclaimed the owner has to get his owner’s and discoverer’s claims afresh on the other portion. This is a very undesirable state of things and has practically the same results as the intensive sub-division of land. The fixed general policy of the department is to deproclaim as much as possible for the benefit of farming. It is in the interests of the country that this should be done as much as possible in order to encourage agriculture. We cannot leave the door open for the artificial multiplication of owners’ rights, and therefore it has appeared necessary from experience to take precautionary measures. It does not follow that they will automatically be applied. In certain cases it will be advisable to impose the conditions, but not in all cases. The merits of each case will have to be considered and the Governor-General will decide in accordance therewith. I hope the hon. member will not press his amendment.

The Minister should remember that when a farm is proclaimed and the diggers have been able to exploit it, they do not go away before they consider that there is nothing more to be done on the farm. De proclamation only follows when there are no more licensees on the farm. When the diggers think that a farm has been well exploited it is surely no more than right that the owner should be entitled to deproclamation. Now, however, it is proposed that such an owner in future may be prevented from working the farm. There may be small pieces of ground which the owner may subsequently need to work. I think it is unfair to put a servitude on the farm after the owner has given the farm and it has been thrown open to the public. It may appear later that among the buildings and’ things which, according to law, are reserved for such an owner there may be diamond-bearing ground, and the owner ought to have the right to exploit it. I still believe that a man is the master of his own property and I cannot see why a servitude can be put on his land after he has given it to the public and the public has obtained benefit from it. It is impossible that there should be so much land remaining on the farm that the owner can again obtain discoverer’s and owner’s rights. I think the owner should have the right to work the pieces of ground that remain after the farm is deproclaimed. The Minister should give his attention to this because I regard this provision as unfair.

I agree with the last speaker, and I think the Minister can safely accept the amendment. The Bill already gives the Minister full power, and I do not see why the Minister should have all these rights on the farm after it has been deproclaimed. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) rightly said that the diggers properly exploit the farm. Hon. members who represent owners’ rights in this House must watch this point carefully The Minister is tampering with owners’ rights throughout the whole Bill, and here he is still going further. If the hon. member for Ventersdrop presses his amendment I shall certainly vote with him.

The Bill as it now stands certainly encroaches upon owners’ rights. It was formerly considered that everything reverted to the owner when a farm was deproclaimed. The Minister has now made certain proposals to assist deproclamation. It often happens that a few claims are left over on a farm, especially in the Cape, and the people continue working them for ever, and the farmer from getting deproclamation and regaining possession of his land. That is the reason for paragraph (a) and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) was unfortunate in selecting that portion. It is paragraphs (b) and (c) which affect the title of the owner after deproclamation. According to them, buildings which have been erected do not revert to the owner. In Johannesburg buildings that were erected on ground under 99 years lease reverted to the owner. I should like to support the hon. member where the owners’ rights are encroached upon, but I think he has referred to the wrong paragraph, because that was inserted to assist the owner if there are anymore claims which keep a digging alive. If he objects to (b) and (c) then it is quite another matter.

The hon. member does not understand what I want. When ground is to be deproclaimed then it cannot be done if there are any diggers who hold licences on the ground. Paragraph (a) says that the Governor-General shall have the right deproclamation of preventing such an owner of working his ground in the future. That has nothing to do with the diggers, but deals with the position after deproclamation. The owner may find after deproclamation that there are still spots of land on which there are diamonds, but then he is prevented from working them on his own behalf.

It does not say that it will be prohibited, but that the Governor-General may prohibit it.

We have had experience of it. We do not always have the same Minister in office, and we do not know what his successor may do. This provision is a servitude on the owner’s land. I do not wish to force the amendment on the Minister, but I want him to consider it because the provision will handicap the owners in the future and may injure them very much. No one will benefit by it, not even the digger and the result will be that the diamonds will lie hidden in the ground so that no one can work them.

I am sorry that the hon. member is weakening and will not press his amendment. Owners’ rights are being taken away because even after deproclamation the Government will still be able to keep control over the farm. When buildings are erected there they belong to the State, but now exceptions are being made in favour of the State that the ground also shall belong to it. No, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) can be removed from the Bill, because they are an unnecessary brake on the owner of the land hope the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) will stick to his guns and not run away. Another point in the provisions is that it shall be stated on the title deed what portions are no longer your property. You will not be able to sell those portions. A building can, e.g., be erected for the mining commissioner, and it may remain the property of the State as well as the land it is built on. The State will also be able to retain ownership of school buildings and buildings for other purposes. I consider it unfair for a law to be passed by which it is stated on the title deed of an owner that certain portions cannot be given back again. When a farm is completely exploited and as it were made unfit for farming, then the Government still wants to reserve rights I hope the hon. member for Ventersdorp will be firm and will not agree to owners’ rights being further curtailed.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Sir. Boshoff). I consider it very fair. The Minister must not forget that the number of prospectors is limited by Clause 7 to five. How can a farm of 5,000 morgen be properly prospected by five prospectors? They may possibly find diamonds on a portion so that it may be decided to proclaim it, but the remaining part of the farm has never yet been prospected. As soon as the farm is deproclaimed this provision will have the result that the owner will not have the right of prospecting the remaining portion of his farm. I consider that very unfair. The Minister has the right to refuse deproclamation and to say that it must first be seen that the farm is completely exploited. It is unfair to prevent the owner from prospecting if he thinks that there are more diamonds.

When we look at the old Acts and the proposal of the Select Committee on the Bill of 1926, then the principle which the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) is advocating has been omitted from the clauses. The Minister said that the owners come and demand the proclamation, and then when they have had the benefits they ask for deproclamation. I want to point out that proclamation does not take place before there has been a discovery of precious stones, and before the department is convinced that the ground is diamond-bearing. It is not a mere matter of the owners coming to ask for proclamation and obtaining it. In the report of the Select Committee of 1926 the following clause was proposed—

That is now left out. The matter was discussed very fully in 1926 and the length was gone to of protecting the Government’s rights when there was further ground which had been exploited on the diggings. We said that when it was thought that a diggings was worked out it could be deproclaimed. The old section read—[section quoted.] It is very clear what the Minister is now protecting. During the continuance of prospecting stand townships were established in Johannesburg, and it is very difficult to-day to decide who owns those stand townships. According to the Gold law they ought, on deproclamation, to have reverted to the owners. Now the Minister is departing from that principle. If stand townships, sporting grounds, or stations are laid out on Brakfontein, then they will never be given back to the owner again. That is what is contained in the clause, and the committee must clearly understand that owners’ rights are being encroached upon.

As the last speaker rightly remarked, the difficulty arises with regard to the Witwatersrand. It is there a vital question, one which intimately concerns a great part of the population of the Witwatersrand. We must keep pace in our legislation with this unexpected and great development of the alluvial diggings. Complaints have been made against the Government this session that we are not granting enough ground for sanitary facilities and for school purposes. We are urged to do more, which would of course mean greater expense to the Government, and now my hon. friend opposite and hon. members on this side as well, want, on deproclamation, these things to be given gratis to the owners.

It is a right under the existing law.

We must remember that when the existing law was made, alluvial diggings were in their primitive state, but to-day we have to do with an unexpectedly comprehensive development, and therefore we have to provide for the future. The whole clause and especially (a) is in favour of agriculture, to hasten deproclamations so that an owner can again quickly resume his agricultural work. Otherwise a farmer as long as there were still a few diggers on his farm could not get deproclamation. Further I want to reply that when deproclamation takes place the farmer’s land is ipso facto under a servitude. The real servitude is the original proclamation because a farmer has to choose whether he wants to farm or wants the chance of making money out of the proclamation. He cannot have both, it cannot be expected that he should blow hot and cold.

Why not?

Because if he wants the land proclaimed he does not know whether the diggers’ community will take large areas or not. He does not know whether the Government will possibly build costly school buildings and the like, and when the ground is deproclaimed one does not know whether the building, if there should be a subsequent proclamation may not again be used for public purposes. Another great objection, however, is that an owner can each time artificially increase his owner’s rights by means of the proclamation, and this must be prevented. If a man has a large farm of, say, 5,000 morgen and, say, 1,000 morgen is proclaimed, then he could shortly thereafter urge that another portion should be proclaimed. There is nothing to prevent large speculators from evading our object, and that the owners, by arrangement with the diggers, suppress the fact that there are diamonds on another portion of a farm, of which the general public know nothing. Just as soon, then, as a farm is unconditionally deproclaimed they come along with a new discovery and obtain extra benefit. As I have said, it was not obligatory on the Government to exercise the powers, but they must be there to fight the evils which have already arisen in practice. The whole thing is intended to encourage the farmers to go on with agriculture, and not to deprive them of the privileges of alluvial diggings, but we may not open the door to improper privileges.

I cannot understand the Minister. My amendment says nothing about buildings and State property. I am only concerned with paragraph (a). I do not see why the owner should not have the fullest right after the diggers have exploited the ground to work his ground as before. The farmer ought then to get back all his rights. My objection is that he is not getting them. I think it is unfair. The Minister has quoted an example of 1,000 morgen of a farm being proclaimed, and subsequently another portion being proclaimed. Is it not possible then for such other portion ever to be proclaimed? Is not the owner to have rights over his own ground.

That is not disputed.

I consider it unfair that after the diggers have left the ground because it is worked out an owner should be prevented from working his ground again if in the future more diamonds are found. Should the position then be such that an owner has to sign a document that when his land is proclaimed he shall never again be able to work his ground in the future after deproclamation? That binds the owner and I want to prevent it. I reckon that a man is master over his own ox, his horse, his wife and all his possessions. I do not believe in your community of goods. That is why I want the owners’ rights to be protected.

Then I should like to know what deproclamation means. When a farm is deproclaimed the owner should surely recover all his rights. What is the necessity then for this provision? The Minister surely keeps control and can prevent deproclamation. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) is quite right that the Government has nothing to do with the farm after deproclamation.

The objection to the amendment seems to be that if the whole farm is not proclaimed at once, but only a portion thereof, and diamonds are subsequently found on another portion that the owner will have the right to have a fresh proclamation. Does it mean that if a part is proclaimed that no further proclamation can take place of such a farm? It is not always certain that only the area where diamonds are first found is the only diamond-bearing part. If the Minister just gives the same rights back to the owners on deproclamation I shall be satisfied. That, however, is not being done here. The Government is taking certain rights, and is not giving them back again We know what difficulties there were on the goldfields when a farm was deproclaimed. The position was a hopeless one as such a farm could not be worked. One could not get any deproclamation because it might happen that after deproclamation more gold might be found. I want a man after deproclamation to have the same rights as before.

The position is very simple. It is undesirable to allow, especially in view of the complicated position on the alluvial diggings, that owners who are hand in glove with large syndicates should be permitted to vacillate in connection with proclamation and deproclamation.

The Minister can prevent it.

Nothing will prevent a secret agreement being come to with some syndic ate or other to insist on proclamation, then to have the ground declared worked out, and a few months later to again insist on proclamation of the piece of land because there is possibly sufficient proof that fresh diamonds have been found. It is very unsound to assist that sort of tiling. In legislation about minerals the basic principle has always been that if anyone allows his ground to be thrown open by proclamation that he then runs the risk which is attached to proclamation and consequent deproclamation. The owner has in the first instance the right of preventing proclamation. It has actually occurred—strangely enough—that an owner has come and insisted on proclamation. Then pressure was brought upon him from outside to insist on deproclamation, and shortly after, for some reason or another a further proclamation was asked for. When we have to do with such conditions we have to take suitable measures.

The syndicates are also owners, and the Minister must not be too hard on them. What the Minister says about such practices having occurred is quite right, but I say that when a farm is proclaimed the Minister has the right to deproclaim or not to deproclaim. That is surely an extensive power, and it appears adequate.

It is very desirable to deproclaim for the good of agriculture.

Then the owner and the Minister agree. I also am opposed to abuse, but the Minister must not only think of Lichtenburg and Namaqualand. We do not know where further diamonds may be found, and we must protect the owners’ rights.

I have already said that I do not wish to force my amendment on the Minister, but I consider it very unfair of the Minister to take no notice of the supporters of the Government who want to do their duty towards their country and people. I cannot see how the arguments used by the Minister can apply to farms that the diggers have already worked out. My argument is that the farm, after it is worked out, should be the property of the owner, and that there should not be a servitude on it when he wants to dig for diamonds again. I want to appeal to the Minister once more to accept my amendment.

I want to point out to the Minister that in the past larger portions of a farm were proclaimed than what had been prospected. It occurred that thousands of morgen were proclaimed, while only 200 morgen had been prospected, then the diggers came and pegged round about the discoverers and owners’ claims, and when discoveries were made, then all rushed to that point, even the owners. When the 200 morgen were worked out and it was thought that there were no diamonds on the remaining 800 morgen then the diggers left and the farm was deproclaimed. If after a year or two diggers go there and say that they want to dig for diamonds on the other 800 morgen where there has never been any prospecting or digging done, then the Minister will deprive the owner of the rights of prospecting or digging there. Such a case is just as much due to the neglect of the department as to that of the other people. The Minister must see to it that the ground which is proclaimed is prospected, and the department should say when ground has not been properly prospected. Then the difficulty will not occur, and the owner will not get too many claims.

I have already repeatedly said in connection with this measure that it is one of the old principles of the old laws which have been in force for years and still are, that the State does not by proclamation guarantee the presence of paying minerals. It is a matter for the owner to find out that there are diamonds on the 500 or 800 morgen which are proclaimed, and over almost the whole area. The onus cannot be put on the State because if the Government expresses the opinion then it may justly be accused of misleading the public. It is a matter for the owner, and through the owner, for the diggers to make certain if 1,000 morgen are proclaimed that they contain diamonds over almost the whole area. The owner comes to the Government and says that diamonds have been discovered and that they will pay. The Government has the right of assuring itself that the ground is diamond-bearing, but to make a fixed practice of sending the Government mining engineers to such land, will also be a bad thing. Now it occurs that ground is proclaimed and that the owner in six or eight months asks that it should be deproclaimed. He asks this because the alluvial diggings are worked out, and that he now wants to prosecute his farming without hindrance from the diggers. Is it then an unfair condition to say that the State will act on the allegation that the ground is worked out and that the owner wants it for farming purposes? We want to make certain that what the owner says is true and the deproclamation will take place unless digging is continued with. It is not an unfair condition. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) need not tell me that I ought to consider the amendment further. I have fully considered the matter, and I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Boshoff put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Sub-section “C” gives the Minister enormous powers, because there you can find ground which can be put aside as sporting ground. This ought certainly not to be passed like that.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

I move—

It is now clear from the amendment of the Minister that he wants to join up the previous clause where he proposes that clause 31 (2) shall be deleted. It is almost useless to reason with the Minister because he is determined to take away the rights of owners.

I did not say anymore about the previous clause because I thought that the owners were still protected by Clause 31 (2), but as the Minister is now moving to delete this, the owners are in a hopeless condition, and altogether in the power of the Government. I do not want to go into this anymore because it appears to me that the Minister is so obstinate that he will not give in.

The hon. members completely misapprehend the position. It does not follow that no rights will revert to the owners. If Clause 31 (2) is deleted then it means that subject to the provisions of Clause 30 regarding churches and other buildings, the surface rights will go back to the owners. That is the necessary sequence of deproclamation and does not require a specific provision.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 33,

I move—

I should like to ask the Minister how he is going to determine what is the life of a mine. Is he going to take the opinion of the Government Engineer as to what the period is, because in a big mine, working on a large scale, a large amount is going to be deducted from the revenue.

The hon. member will see in definition, Clause 116, I am proposing an amendment. [Amendment read.]

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 34,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 36,

I move—

I want to ask the Minister to accept a small amendment—

The Minister prescribes a period whereby, by three months’ notice in writing, he may impress this upon the notice of the mine-owner, but he fails to provide for the default being remedied within that period.

I think the words mentioned in the hon. member’s amendment are already implied in the Bill.

I move—

Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) give the Minister all the powers that can reasonably be required, but sub-section (d) gives the Minister drastic powers to determine an owner’s rights simply if a man fails to take notice of any written notice submitted to him. The Minister should consider very seriously before putting subsection (d) into operation, for that sub-section will practically put owners’ rights in such a precarious position that they will not be worth the paper they are written on.

I would like to support the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) for the clause as it stands is not quite clear. I would suggest—

I have no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) which I prefer to the one suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), I do not know why hon. members should think that a public department endeavours to do anything else but to hold the balance evenly. Surely a public department in the administration of a public Act naturally endeavours to do what they think is in the public interest and what the. Act intends. It is not a question of the department taking a partizan view. The State has no interest in the question, which is one between the owner and the diggers. There are many Acts of Parliament which contain practically the same phraseology as that to which the hon. member objects. Sub-section (d) is inserted because it is impossible to foretell what specific requirements may afterwards emerge and may have to be complied with. If we don’t have this general covering clause we may not have power to enforce what is needed. The Mining Leases Act gives the department very elastic powers, and I don’t think it will be suggested that the Minister or the department has ever taken up an autocratic or arbitrary attitude in this matter. I hope the hon. member will not press the amendment.

The clause has been made very much more drastic against the owner in regard to this right. The Minister must remember that he is dealing with vested interests. I am not imputing anything against the Minister, but take the case at Welverdiend, where there was a difference of opinion, and the case went to the Supreme Court which held against the Minister. Under sub-section (d) an owner’s rights will be in danger at the whim of the Minister. Previously it was not necessary for the owner or discoverer to notify the Minister in writing whether he intends to work the mine within a prescribed period, but now it is necessary.

I don’t think any hon. member should be unduly apprehensive as to the non-negotiability of owners’ rights so far as uncertainty of title is concerned. It is marvellous how people invest money in mere will-o’-the-wisps. In Namaqualand vast sums have been invested in mere prospecting areas on which not a single diamond has been found.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries and by Mr. Coulter put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik put and negatived.

I move—

I take this from the Orange Free State mining laws. In this section there are two provisos. The second is that the Minister shall not exercise the powers given in the section under the circumstances that are specified in the proviso. These circumstances include such things as scarcity of water, serious accident, scarcity of labour, disputes with workmen, etc. The Minister will be covered because I have inserted the words “bona fide.”

I should like to ask the hon. member under what circumstances it would be necessary to keep a mine going if the production of stones does not pay for the getting of them.

You may have a case where you cannot get a market for the stones, or you may have a case where production cannot take place owing to the high cost of production. It may be that temporarily there are higher working costs or difficulties, say, in connection with the supply of water. They might only be temporary.

I want to point out to the Minister that there is an agreement between certain mines in South-West and the State by which 66 per cent. of the yield goes to the State. Mines that make less than 10 per cent., however, surrender nothing. It seems to me that the amendments of the hon. member will lead to mines not producing more than 10 per cent. and the State will then get nothing. I want to prevent the mines from giving high salaries to the directors, and so making under 10 per cent. and the Crown getting nothing.

I am not inclined to accept the amendment. It is, of course, a matter which the Minister must bear in mind, but I am not inclined to have it formally incorporated in the Bill. The provision is in Section 127 of the gold law, and I do not think there is a single case where the power is used. There is, therefore, no reason for hon. members thinking that unreasonable or unfair action will be taken, and I hope the hon. member will not press his amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the heading “Part II”,

The headings refer to the working of new and existing mines. The Minister has made it clear he does not intend by Clause 2, sub-section (2) to refer by his amendment to any existing mines, except those in which the Crown has a proprietary interest. This heading refers to all existing mines and might be misconstrued. It might be amended by the addition of the words, after “new and existing mines,”—“in which the Crown has a proprietary interest.” The point has probably been considered by the Minister, and I do not think he intended to exercise the right of inspecting books of existing mines in which the Crown has no proprietary interest. I move—

How then would the Crown examine books of new mines that might be discovered? This clause deals with all the new mines to be discovered.

It is a matter which can be put right on coming to Clause 2 of the Bill which is standing over.

I suggest I put my amendment on the paper and that the headings be allowed to stand over.

Very well, I agree to that.

The amendment will, of course, exclude certain mines in which the State is not interested. If the Minister does not have the right to have the books of mines, e.g., the De Beers company, gone into, then I ask where the control contemplated by the Bill will come in? If the production and the profits of the big companies like De Beers cannot be investigated, then no control will be possible and the Bill may just as well be torn up.

If the motion for the heading to stand over is passed, does this involve the subsequent clauses under this heading?

I fear that the clauses under the heading will then also have to stand over.

If the effect of letting the heading stand over is to let the following clauses of that heading stand over, I am sorry I cannot accept it, because then too many clauses will stand over.

The hon. member (Mr. Coulter) may move his amendment at the report stage.

If the hon. member will send his amendment to me in writing, I will consider it for the report stage.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is clear whether he intends this inspection to be confined to existing mines in which the Crown has a proprietary interest?

I am not prepared to say, at present. The hon. member has given no notice of this proposed amendment. I am prepared to consider the whole thing for the report stage. I am not prepared to consider making any promise or any other declaration on this amendment at the present stage. If the hon. member does not withdraw it, and it is voted down, I do not know whether it can be brought up again at the report stage.

It can be brought up again at the report stage.

I suppose the hon. member agrees that these provisions should apply to all new mines. If an addition is made in the terms suggested by the hon. member it might be interpreted as meaning that the provisions shall apply also to new mines in which the Crown has a proprietary interest. It seems to me that it would be better if the heading read—

Would it not be better to withdraw the amendment now and let it be considered at the report stage?

I withdraw the amendment, under the circumstances.

With leave of Committee amendment withdrawn.

I may remind the hon. member that if he wishes to bring it up at the report stage, he will have to give notice of it.

Heading, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 49,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I move—

If we do not insert those words “or under a prior law,” it would appear that any claims which had been pegged under a prior law would not in future be proclaimable.

I think that the amendment is unnecessary, because it falls under the presumption of non-retrospectivity of a new law, so far as rights already acquired are concerned.

I think this is a point that requires some consideration. Let us take a case where, prior to the coming into effect of this Act, an owner or discoverer had become entitled to claims, but no proclamation had taken place. Obviously, the proclamation would not take place under the old law, and it must be a proclamation under this law. Although the Minister speaks of rights being saved, it is quite clear that if there has been no proclamation within a certain period the proclamation can only be made under the present Act and under this particular section. Then, the Minister, unless the amendment is accepted, will be debarred from recognizing the rights of an owner or discoverer under a prior law, because, as the section reads—

What about the claims to which they are entitled under a prior law? They will have no legal means of enforcing their rights. I do put it to the Minister that his argument in answer to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is quite inapplicable.

I will consider it for the report stage. It is quite a small thing.

Does the hon. member withdraw the amendment?

No, I would like the Minister to let this stand over if there is any question about it. If there is any other possible repercussion which we cannot see at the present time, I would rather that the clause should stand over.

It is competent for the hon. member himself to move at the report stage, so that he is not prejudiced by not pressing his amendment now. Let us pass the clause.

I want the Minister to allow the clause to stand over, because it deals with a question of very great importance to my constituency.

Then let it stand over. Do not let us waste time. I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 50,

I move—

In section 50 the words, “on payment of licence moneys hereinafter provided” implies prepayment of money before the licence can be issued. I have been approached by representatives of the miners to ask the Minister whether he would not accept an amendment for the payment of licence money within three days of the issue of the licence. Under present circumstances, it is impossible to apply the provisions of the Bill as provided for here. There are only two alternatives, either the people must come days beforehand to get the licences from the mining commissioner, or illegal practices will have to take place. For that reason I wish to move—

I am afraid it would cause too much difficulty. If a man is prepared to go and peg a claim and to take out a claim licence then I do not see why he should not be prepared to pay his money at once. I do not see that three days would benefit him materially. He gets a right there on payment of a small sum of money and I do not see why that money should not be paid immediately.

May I suggest that in addition to Christmas Day and Good Friday the Minister should put in Ascension Day? It is one of the days when Parliament always refuses to sit.

I understand that up to now the fixed practice on the alluvial diggings has been to observe Christmas Day and Good Friday, and no other day has been observed. I think, as a matter of fact, Parliament has sat in the past on Ascension Day, I won’t say always, but it has sat sometimes.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Stals put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 51,

I move—

I hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the amendment. The clause provides that diggers only are considered when a lottery of claims takes place, i.e., persons who have been digging for more than six months. Persons who have not been digging so long cannot participate in the lottery. I do not think it right to give that preference. Diggers consist of farmers or officials who have been driven to the diggings by circumstances and I do not think it is fair to limit the lottery to persons who have perhaps already had great benefits from the diggings and who are well off.

I move—

With regard to this clause, generally known as the lottery clause, it is clear that the discretion of the Governor-General should be made as elastic as possible, because we do not know what circumstances may arise. It may, e.g., be necessary to limit the people who can take part in a lottery to persons who have been diggers for a certain time, but the discretion of the Governor-General must be very wide because the circumstances differ so endlessly. Take the case of Namaqualand. I will not say what is going to happen but only what can be done. The north-western districts have for years suffered from drought and adversity and it may possibly be necessary to prevent a rush of diggers to Namaqualand until the people in Namaqualand, or of a portion of it, have first been given a preference. So also in certain circumstances it may be desirable to limit the people who can take part in the lottery to a certain section Take, e.g., the case of two or three lotteries succeeding each other. To-day a lottery has taken place in which many people have taken part and have obtained a claim and done well out of it. Then possibly the Government, and rightly, may decide that these people shall be excluded from the lottery which takes place a week or a month later, especially if such a lottery takes place in an area which is within, say, about ten miles from the first area, It may thus happen for that reason that the people ought to be satisfied and cannot expect that they, for instance, should again within six months participate in a lottery. For the same reason it may be necessary, I do not say that this will be done, to restrict lotteries to persons who have already been diggers for a certain time. This is just one of the great questions which we have to solve with reference to alluvial diggings. There is such a conflict of opinion, and such division among the people, that it is extremely difficult to handle the position.

Yes, but according to this clause all the people who have not been digging for six months are unfortunately excluded. I am sorry if I read it wrong but that is what I think it says. It is not only Namaqualand which is stricken by drought, but the midlands of the Cape Province are suffering badly, and the people there are driven to the diggings. Not because they are so keen on going, but because they can do nothing else. They would rather do something else if they could make a living, but they are forced to go there.

It says that it “may” be done.

But I do not want that.

It is clear that the discretion of the Governor-General must be made as elastic as possible so that action can be taken according to circumstances. The circumstances vary so much and others so unexpectedly present themselves that it is impossible to say beforehand what position will arise, and it is urgently necessary to have that elastic power in certain cases. As I have already said, the policy of the Government is to give the small man in the first place a chance on the alluvial diggings, and that is not limited to the man who has already been digging, but the man who has not yet been digging will also be considered. I have already often impressed it upon the diggers that those who are at Lichtenburg and anywhere else have not a vestige of greater right than the man who walks the street out of work. That is the fixed policy of the Government. But we have to do here with the lottery clause, and the Government has earnestly considered the matter and come to the conclusion that the most elastic powers must be given to the Governor-General, but the man who has not yet been a digger is not to be excluded. He may be excluded but the Government will apply the law in reasonable and just manner.

The matter is not yet quite clear to me. As I read the Article, if Namaqualand is proclaimed the poor farmers of Namaqualand will have no chance at all, but only those people who have been diggers will be able to take part in the lottery. The bona fide diggers of Lichtenburg and elsewhere will go to Namaqualand and will be able to take part, and the people who are in distress there and who live in Namaqualand may none of them take part in the lottery unless they have previously been diggers.

When I put all the amendments on the Order Paper, hon. members said that they could not make head nor tail of it. If there is one member in the House who knows the Bill as it stands then it is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff). There is not a point which he does not notice. In this case, however, his explanation is good enough as far as it goes, but the hon. member should read a little further on, and see the amendment which I have proposed. In the amendment “six months” is deleted, and it is said that the Minister “may” lay down that a person should have been a digger to be able to take part in a lottery. And it is further provided that the Governor-General can restrict the right of taking part in a lottery to such class, or classes of persons, and it is the diggers who might have a grievance against me that regulations can possibly be made whereby all the present diggers will be excluded, and whereby a lottery will be restricted to persons who have never yet had the opportunity of digging.

The amendments of the Minister are so overwhelming that one gets confused, but after the Minister’s explanation I withdraw the amendment.

There are, as I have said on a previous occasion, so many amendments that one gets confused, but the Minister is doing the right thing and every time there is a difficult clause he allows it to stand over. I have never yet seen such a complicated affair, but if the Minister is going to move further amendments he will possibly do well in laying down, as was the accepted principle in the republican days, to reserve lottery rights to people who are not in arrear with their taxes.

I rise on behalf of the Transvaal Prospectors’ Association to thank the Minister for having stopped the rushes for claims. They are thankful, and I am certain that a fairer position is now being created. I therefore hope the Minister will leave the clause as it is.

I also can assure the Minister that not only the diggers but the public in general are in favour of the lottery system. I want, however, with all respect, to make a suggestion to the Minister. I notice the clause does not provide the way in which the lottery is to take place and that regulations in that connection are to be issued. I want to ask the Minister, in drafting the regulations, to see that the diggers who are directly concerned or will be concerned shall be present at the lottery. In the end people are only human and there may be suspicion in such a case. To set the minds of the people at rest it will be wise for the Minister to consider my suggestion.

I do not want 20,000 persons to attend to take part in viewing the lottery, but there is no doubt that provision will be made in the regulations that representatives of the persons interested can be present—a reasonable number—to satisfy themselves that everything is in order.

With leave of Committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Brits withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 52,

I move—

I move—

This is an amendment sent in by the Prospectors Association. Seven days is a very short time for anyone living any distance from the mining commissioner’s office. Nothing is more closely scrutinized by the diggers themselves than the list of lapsed claims, and to avoid any question of claim-jumping it is essential that the list of lapsed claims should be posted up at all mining commissioner’s offices. This would also be beneficial from the revenue point of view, for if these lapsed claims are considered suitable, they will be re-pegged by other diggers. According to the Act it is necessary for the man to slip away on an opportune occasion in order to pay his licence, and I am pleading for an alteration from seven to fourteen days, and also that lapsed claims should be posted up by the mining commissioner. It is essential that that list should be up-to-date. The objection to doing it is purely administrative.

I think seven days is ample. A man can anticipate the seven days by leaving his residence or his farm earlier in order to be in time. I do not think there is any necessity to give more than seven days. I see, from the last report, the alluvial diggings have produced a quarter-of-a-million of diamonds. It is only in cases of big competition, and where claims are very valuable, that there is any serious risk of losing title, and I think in these cases they should be vigilant and particularly careful in attending to the matter. Administratively I find that the last part of the amendment imposes a tremendous burden on the mining commissioner’s office. I hope the hon. member will withdraw his amendment.

I don’t think the Minister has given a valid reason. I am pleading for the prospector away in the back blocks, and if he is late in renewing his claim it ipso facto lapses, and he must go through the process of re-pegging. This is a practical point, and I know the difficulties these men have to contend with in getting in in time to pay their claim licence. They usually get in at the last moment. In fact. I might say the digger is usually an improvident man and leaves it to the last moment.

He should be taught to be provident.

If the Minister wants to adopt the policy of teaching the digger on questions of that kind let him do it by all means, but do not put it in the Bill. I am pleading for the type of man who is opening up the country and who, after all, ranks with the pioneers. An alteration from seven to fourteen days as far as revenue is concerned is not very much. With regard to the Minister’s reply to the last point, he seems to be obsessed with the idea that the officials are overburdened with work. If the Minister had had more care and intelligence displayed at Lichtenburg we should not have had the amount of litigation we have to-day. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that the department knows the claim has fallen due and that it is not paid, and if the list were posted up and the diggers knew that the claim would lapse within two or three days, the men would be more vigilant. If the Minister wants to cut out the prospector altogether, let him say so. But I am out to encourage him.

This does not deal with the prospectors, but the claim-holders; and let me point out, with regard to the seven days, that it is open to the claim-holder to renew the claim licence by post. It is not necessary to come in. With regard to the last part of the amendment, any claim-holder can go to the mining commissioner’s office and get the information he wants.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Munnik put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 54,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 57,

I move—

1. (1) Any person not being a person mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act who desires to obtain a digger’s certificate under this Act to enable him to prospect for precious stones or dig on an alluvial digging shall apply for such certificate to the diggers’ committee having jurisdiction in the area in which he desires to exercise those rights, or if there is no diggers’ committee for that area then to the magistrate and, before granting such certificate, the committee or magistrate as the case may be shall be satisfied that he is of good character, over the age of eighteen and a fit and proper person to hold such certificate and is enrolled or entitled be to enrolled, or would but for the disqualification of age be entitled to be enrolled as a voter at an election of members of the House of Assembly;

in line 35, to omit “one month” and to substitute “two months”; in line 40, to omit “to” and to substitute “with”; and in lines 40 and 41, to omit “having jurisdiction within the said area”; and an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I have been asked to approach the Minister in regard to the age of a claimholder. In line 28 it reads that he shall be of good character. The request is that the age limit be reduced to 18.

I have provided for that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 58,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 59,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 60,

I move—

May I ask the Minister to explain the amendment under which he proposes to leave out the words after “offence”? As the clause reads, any person who employed any other person whose certificate of character had been cancelled to work upon an alluvial digging was to be guilty of an offence unless he proves he had no knowledge of such cancellation.” Now, the Minister moves out those words. There may be a case where a man does not know that the certificate has been cancelled.

It is the employer’s duty to ascertain that the person has a certificate which is valid and current, before he takes him into his service.

But supposing he is still in possession of this certificate?

Then it is for the employer to take proper steps. He can easily go to the authority on the fields. It is a matter of a moment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 62,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 63,

I move—

I should like to have a little information with regard to the alteration made by the Minister in this clause. The Minister was prepared to give the poor people an opportunity in certain circumstances to form a partnership.

Provision is made for that further on. I will tell the hon. member when we get to it.

As Clause 63 stands, when read with sections 73 and 74, as amended by the Minister, we are likely to have a contradiction. I want to put it to the Minister whether it would not be necessary to insert at the commencement of section 63 words to this effect—

because, according to his own amendment, he does allow in certain circumstances persons to work claims in partnership. Now he proposes here an absolute prohibition, upon a person working a claim in partnership with another person, not being the holder of a digger’s certificate.

That is the important part—not being the holder of a digger’s certificate. There is no conflict.

The Minister makes it clear later on that there may be, under Clause 73, no association of two or more persons capable of holding a claim licence.

No, there is no conflict. I have considered that carefully.

Does that refer to syndicates that are working now Is it going to be retrospective?

All that Section 63 prohibits is the working of a claim in partnership with a person who is not the holder of a certificate, nothing else.

I am not clear on this point. How would it affect people who have bought shares in claims but who are not living on the diggings; people who are in partnership with men who have diggers’ certificates, and who are resident, say, in Natal, or the Cape or any other place; people who have bought sub-divisions of a property, who are not licence-holders themselves, but who are in partnership with persons who are.

That is dealt with in 73.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 66,

On the motion of the Minister of Alines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 67,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 69,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 70,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 72,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 73,

I move—

I think it is a mistake to put off these contentious clauses. I think we ought to deal with them. It is putting off the evil day. Why not let us face them at once? I will put it to the Minister that we go back to 20 and take 20 and 73 together as there is a distinct connection between the two.

I think it is better to proceed with the non-contentious clauses because there is a link between all the contentious clauses. The committee will have a much better purview of the whole thing if we confine ourselves lastly to the contentious clauses.

The trouble is that some of us have taken a certain amount of trouble over these clauses and it is difficult to know exactly when the Minister proposes to firing them on.

I proceeding to the end of the Bill and leaving aside so long the very contentious clauses and then dealing with them lastly. I will bring them on as soon as possible.

Motion put and agreed to.

Clauses 74 to 76 to stand over.

On Clause 77,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 78,

I move—

There are six diggers’ representatives to be elected on the Board of Control, which as a rule meets at Kimberley. This amendment simply gives the Governor-General power from time to time to assign, say, two of these six to the Cape Province, and four to the Transvaal or three to the Cape Province and three to the Transvaal, and further to issue regulations to regulate the election.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 82,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 84,

I move—

1. (a) dies;
2. (b) resigns;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 87,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 88,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 89,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 91,

I move—

It is very difficult to understand from the amendment of the Minister what the actual position is. Cannot the Minister give us an explanation? I understand the diggers will have rights to fountains from which the water comes. I should like to know what the effect of the amendment will be.

The effect is to make everything subject to the present Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912. Then it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to introduce an Irrigation Bill next year and this chapter will then be replaced by the special provision which will be made in it for alluvial diggings. The position of the owners is guaranteed as it exists to-day under the Act of 1912. That is the alteration intended by the additional amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 92,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 93,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 94,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 96,

I move—

Does the Minister think that it is fair to move these amendments before they are published? They are important.

It is merely a slight alteration. The word “necessarily” is inserted, otherwise it is similar to the amendment on the Order Paper.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 97,

I move—

I should like to have information as to the meaning of the clause after line 55.

That is all being deleted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 98,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 100,

I want to ask the Minister what the effect of this clause will be on the worked-out ground of the alluvial diggings?

I will explain that to the hon. member later.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 103,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I move—

I accept that amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 104,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 107 put and negatived.

New Clause 107,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 108,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 111,

I move—

The object is in connection with cases where you might have a native policeman going round demanding to see the diggers’ certificates and this has been put up by the coloured workers to prevent them being bucketed about by anybody coming round looking for night passes.

There is a considerable percentage of undesirable people there to-day, which the diggers admit, and the whole object of this is to enable the police to deal with them. The police should not be hampered by having to ask for specific authority before they can act.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 112,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 114,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 115,

I move—

And to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (8).

Agreed to.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper, and I want to point out the hardship prospectors are to be put to in this sub-clause (2) (d).

I cannot admit an amendment to be put to any previous amendment passed.

But I gave notice on the Order Paper.

But the principle has been passed in a previous part of the Bill.

I cannot take notice of this amendment.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 116,

I move—

In line 13, after “therefrom” to insert “together with such further expenditure as may from time to time be sanctioned by the Minister under this Act”; in line 16, after “pegged” to insert “or allotted”; in lines 43 and 44, to omit “on shaft sinking equipment and development of the mine” and to substitute “on development of the mine and maintenance of equipment, and includes an allowance for the redemption over the life of the mine of such part of the capital expenditure incurred by the owner, surface owner or discoverer as is proportionate to his share of the mine together with expenditure incurred by him from time to time subsequent to proclamation on shaft sinking and equipment”; to insert the following new definitions to follow the definition “expenditure”:

in lines 66 to 68, to omit “and when used in reference to land shall mean the mining district in which that land is situate”; in line 18, on page 72, after “which” to insert “in the opinion of the mining commissioner”; and in line 36, after “sources” to insert “connected with mining”; and certain amendments in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I want to deal with the definition of the word “discoverer” and would like to ask the Minister a question in that respect.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to the definition of “discoverer.” He has provided for the case where a discoverer has a certificate under Chapter II and also where he has a certificate which has been issued under any law repealed by this Act and which is current at the commencement of this Act. I would like to ask the Minister whether his definition is wide enough to meet the case which, I suppose, does exist where a discoverer has become entitled to a certificate before the commencement of the Act but the certificate has not been issued up to that date. Does the Minister intend this definition to cover that case?

I think the difficulty of the hon. member is met by the provision we have made in the new sub-clause (5) of Clause 8, which says that the withdrawal from prospecting of any land or the prohibition or restriction of prospecting shall not prejudice the application of a prospector for a certificate of discovery in respect of any prospecting lawfully carried on by him before such withdrawal, prohibition or restriction.

In my constituency there are prospecting areas, but I do not see a definition anywhere of prospecting areas. There are people who have pegged off areas and made discoveries but there are others who have not done any digging at all as yet. The Minister is quite overlooking them. My explanation of a prospecting area is those morgen on which a man has a right to prospect. What is, however, the position on Crown land? There are 700,000 morgen of Crown land. If it is now excluded and there is no more talk of prospecting areas then such a thing will no longer exist. How does the Minister say that ground is open for prospecting. Does a man only get one claim when he has made a discovery, or what? In what area is it granted? Nothing is said of prospecting areas, but it merely speaks of discoverers who already have discoverers’ rights. I understand that there is one man who has the discoverers’ rights in his pocket, but that there are 1,200 people who pegged off prospecting areas in February. What is to become of them? If we should decide to expropriate them then I say that this Bill contemplates control and not expropriation. The Minister has issued a proclamation, but if it is cancelled then the people will surely have the same rights again on the prospecting areas or does the Minister think that their rights will be wiped out by the proclamation? The party I belong to have never yet supported such a thing as expropriation, and if it is done now it will be the first time it has occurred. I want an explanation from the Minister as to what will become of the prospecting areas. Does the Minister intend to close Crown land to any discoveries that are made? We must have clarity before this Bill is put on the statute book so that people know where they stand. The people have had lean and bad years, and if they are now discouraged then they will not prospect again. If the Minister does not want them to do so anymore then it should not take place by way of proclamation. Those people have obtained their rights under the existing laws and the Minister surely does not intend to wipe them out by a stroke of the pen.

The hon. member is under an entirely wrong impression. This is a clause which contains verbal stipulations only and has nothing to do with prospecting areas. The hon. member himself has an amendment in connection with Clause 2 which is standing over, and which he can still move, and which deals with pegged off prospecting areas. The hon. member will see that in Clause 4 (5) provision is made for prospecting areas. With regard to areas already pegged the hon. member makes provision in the amendment which he can still move. We need not say anything about it therefore in Clause 116.

The Minister said my point was covered by sub-section (5) of Section 8. That is not so. I am referring to something entirely different from what is dealt with by that particular clause. Land is withdrawn under this Act from the prospector under Section 3, Sub-section (4), and the prohibition of prospecting operations on any land is covered by Sub-section (4) of Section 8. I am not dealing with that case at all. I am dealing with the case where the discoverer prior to the passing of this Act has acquired a right to discoverer’s claims. It is not a question of prohibition or withdrawal, but something entirely different from that. The Minister agreed with my views with reference to the necessity of making it clear that where an alluvial digging was proclaimed provision must be made for the rights of the owners under any prior law. He has not dealt with the case where the discoverer has done everything except actually receive his certificate. I suggest to cover my point that there should be added at the end of the definition of discoverer words to this effect—

Otherwise under what law can a certificate be issued? If this takes the Minister by surprise, will he consider it on the same basis as the other amendment moved by me and let it be dealt with at the report stage?

It is very difficult to call a man a discoverer who has only accrued a right which puts him on the way to becoming a discoverer, but under common law he is protected because if he has acquired a right before the Bill becomes law, then by virtue of that right he becomes entitled to become a discoverer notwithstanding the new law, but I am perfectly willing to consider it with a view to the report stage.

I am not speaking only of prospecting in the past, but also in the future, and I merely want the Minister to also put a definition of prospecting areas in this clause.

It already occurs in Clause 4 (5). If the hon. member will just read it he will see that it is so.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the definition of the term “dig.” We talk about an intention to win precious stones, and we go on and we say it is boring. For legal purposes it is probably necessary to put that in, but I do not see how by any stretch of the imagination digging can mean boring. I am talking purely as a miner and not as a legal man. In regard to the life of a mine, I think we are clouding the definition. To say “from time to time as may be considered expedient by the Government Mining Engineer” is tautological.

With regard to the life of a mine, this I understand is perfectly clear. You cannot determine it once and for all definitely. It depends upon circumstances that arise from time to time. Consequently you have to revise your calculations and re-determine the probable life of a mine. It is purely a question of an opinion which has to be revised from time to time.

Amendments put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I would like the Minister to let these schedules stand over because except for Nos. 2 and 3 they are all affected by the clauses that are standing over. The first schedule is affected, the second and third are not affected, and the fourth, fifth and sixth are entirely affected by the clauses standing over.

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister in regard to paragraph (a). He now provides apparently that if a person has been resident in a province not less than three months, that person shall be liable for this provincial tax. I want to suggest to the Minister that it would be very much more satisfactory from every point of view if he would allow the tax to be levied on persons who are ordinarily resident in the province. That is a well understood legal term which has appeared in several of our statutes. You can understand a person on a visit to the Transvaal carefully watching the calendar and marking it off day by day. When he reaches the eighty-fifth day he starts to pack his trunks, at eighty-six he books a ticket and at eighty-seven he get in a train and leaves the Transvaal. The sole intention, as the Minister told us, is that this tax shall only be paid in the ordinary way by residents of the Transvaal, persons who live there. I would suggest it would be far more satisfactory if instead of imposing a ninety-day limit, which is entirely artificial, we imposed a tax on persons ordinarily resident in the Transvaal. Therefore I move—

I may say that it has been suggested that we should make liable under the Bill not only persons who are resident there, but also persons who are domiciled there. Domicile is a difficult term and I am afraid when it comes to “ordinarily resident” it may mean the same difficulty. We must have that term applied to all the provinces, I take it. What would be the position, for instance, of people temporarily in the Transvaal who are living there for ninety days but not ordinarily resident there, in other words not domiciled there? Those people would escape, whereas they could equitably be held to be liable, or rather should contribute to the provincial services. I am afraid that if we were to alter that conception we should get into difficulties again. I move—

No doubt that is true, but the Minister is going to be in an equal difficulty, because under the Bill, as it stands, a man must be resident, I suppose that means actually physically resident, for 90 days. I think the Minister will find that it is much more difficult to enforce this particular provision than the one of my hon. friend.

I assure the Minister he will have far more difficulty in applying this than he will have in accepting the words “ordinarily resident.” How are the revenue authorities to obtain a knowledge of how long a person stays in a town? We do not live on the Continent, where the arrival and departure of persons is recorded by the police. In many fiscal statutes—death duties, for one —it is a commonly accepted legal term, and there is no difficulty in applying it.

Will it not give the same difficulties as “domicile”?

No, residence is an actual fact, and there must be intention as well to constitute domicile.

Ninety days is what they have in their present ordinance.

I would never take a provincial ordinance as a precedent on which to rely in legal matters. After all, what we are passing in this House is an enabling Act, and within the four corners of an enabling Act they can do what they like, but we want to make quite sure that in our enabling Act we bring within the ambit of this tax only persons who are Transvaal residents.

I support what has been said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It seems that there is no difficulty whatever about the matter. In other countries certain times are prescribed, but there are various ways of ascertaining there when people come and go. The Minister does not, for example, want to hit a man who comes from England for three months on a business expedition and stays, let us say, two days more than the ninety days. You do not want to get at a man like that. It is perfectly easy for a court to decide whether a man is bona fide resident or not. Domicile brings in the question of intention, and there is no need to bring that matter in at all. To make the limit a cast-iron period of ninety days seems to me to be only looking for trouble. The real solution of all these difficulties is if the Minister would see that before provincial council authorities bring in measures of taxation they should, at any rate, consult with the Union authorities. That would save the passing of many absurd ordinances by these provincial councils, and the Transvaal Provincial Council in particular.

How did previous Ministers claim under the ninety days clause?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) might put his amendment on the paper for the report stage. At present I cannot see what the effect of this is going to be. It is a very difficult matter.

With leave of Committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 2,

I move—

The intention of my amendment is to deal with the penalty which is imposed by some of the provincial councils for the non-payment of taxes on the due date. I have an example here of a first assessment for the Transvaal tax. It was for £26 14s. 2d., plus eight months’ penalty of £21 7s. 3d. In addition to that, there was a notice that there would be another 10 per cent. added if it was not paid two days before the assessment was received. The penalty was nearly 100 per cent. of the tax. It seems almost impossible to believe that any legislative body should put on such a penalty. The intention of my amendment is to limit the penalty to the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. I do not think anybody, not even the provincial council, can complain about that Under the Usury Act the maximum that can be charged by the most usurious individual is 30 per cent. per annum for an amount under £10, while it is 12 per cent. per annum for an amount above that. If any usurer charges more than these rates he is liable to a fine of £100, and thoroughly deserves it. What is the position of the provincial council supposed to be setting the pace to these usurers when they (the provincial councils) charge 120 per cent. per annum? Under the ordinary Income Tax Act of 1925 the rate for non-payment is 7 per cent. per annum, which is a fair rate. There is a suggestion that the only way to get the people to pay these assessments is by fining them so heavily that the amount of the tax increases monthly by an enormous amount. My reply to that is that taxation of that nature must be bad in its essence if the only way to get it collected is by way of these enormous penalties. This is really a way the provincial councils have of avoiding the limitation imposed by the Act of 1925. A limit is put on the amount of income tax they are allowed to charge. They are asking double their limit, which is a very unfair thing, and is entirely against the intention of this House. We ought to shepherd the provincial councils into levying their income tax exactly on the same basis as the ordinary income tax, so that a man, when he gets his income tax demand, knows exactly what proportion he is paying to the provincial council. A different date can be fixed for the payment of the provincial income tax, so that the taxpayer will have facilities for paying. It will save enormous quantities of labour and expense to the State, and the provincial councils would know exactly what they would get. I defy any man under the present ordinance of the Transvaal to know what he has to pay and what is due from him. There is no way to test it, and the taxpayer has to pay blindly, and to pay this exorbitant penalty because he, and no one else, not even the income tax authorities, know eight months after the date what he had to pay. It is the most iniquitous form of penalty I can imagine any Government inflicting on its citizens. They are upsetting the entire balance of taxation, and the Minister of Finance is at the mercy of these provincial councils. The whole balance can be upset by some financial crank. I am one of those who believe that the sooner we come to the conclusion to take away the power of the provincial councils to tax the better for the country. Their methods of taxation have been so unsound and unreasonable that I would rather be in the hands of the Minister of Finance and get a fair, well-balanced system of taxation than the system used by these provincial councils, simply because they are in the position of a man who is hard up and must get money—honestly if he can, but dishonestly otherwise.

If I owe the State a certain sum by way of income tax, and I do not pay it when it is due, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue charges me 7 per cent. per annum on my arrears. If, under the same Act, I owe to the Province of the Transvaal an amount of 20 per cent. of the Union income tax, the province charges me at the rate of 120 per cent. per annum—the same tax, levied in the same way, derived from the same source, and payable by the same taxpayer. For some occult reason the Transvaal thinks it necessary to charge 10 per cent. per month. Could anything be more iniquitous or less defensible. Before we had a Usury Act it was laid down in the common law that you could not recover interest exceeding the amount of the principle, and it was held to be something akin to fraud to attempt to extort usurious interest. Under the Usury Act the maximum interest for an amount over £25 is 12 per cent. per annum. The Act also says that anyone who makes a business of money lending has to place the word “money lender” on his office and his notepaper. If we don’t accept the amendment I hope we will apply the provision I have just mentioned to the Transvaal Provincial Council. Of all forms of taxation there is none that causes greater irritation and ill-feeling than this surcharge of 10 per cent. per month. Very often this impost falls on people who have not paid their tax because there may be a dispute about the assessment or because they may have gone away on a holiday. I do not know anything less dignified than the annual rush which takes place in the Transvaal to pay the tax so as to avoid the surcharge of 10 per cent. per month. The Minister gets his income tax normally without much trouble, and nothing could be more reasonable than to allow the provincial councils a maximum interest of 12 per cent. Some “sportsman” in the Transvaal Provincial Council has said that the first thing they intend to do when this Bill is passed is to put through an ordinance which will relieve the lower income-tax payers and heavily increase the burden on incomes of over £1,500 a year. I shall draft an amendment for the report stage laying it down that the percentage of income tax payments in the Transvaal must be exactly the same. There must be the same abatement and the rate itself must be uniform right through.

Up to the present the principle which has guided us in these matters has been not to interfere with the constitutional rights of the provincial councils unless with their consent. That is the policy, at any rate, of the present Government. In so far as we have curtailed their constitutional rights we have done it with their consent. When the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) mentioned this matter to me privately I must confess I had a good deal of sympathy with his amendment, especially so far as it deals with the ordinary income tax. I said if the department finds 7 per cent. a sufficient incentive to get people to pay promptly why should it not be so in regard to the provincial income tax. I telegraphed to the Transvaal Provincial Administration and it was pointed out to me that here you have to do not only with income tax but with a poll tax and where we have very small payments if you have only a small percentage charge for interest it acts as no deterrent. The department says that if the amendment is allowed to affect the poll tax they will have to increase the staff enormously and will not get their money. The hon. member is not on sure ground in comparing this with usurious rates of interest. We are here dealing with a penalty for non-payment. He says why not differentiate, but if you do that you make a distinction between the rich and the poor—if you have a heavy penalty in the case of the poll taxpayer and a lighter penalty in the case of the income taxpayer. The Transvaal Administration objects very strongly to interference with the rights of the provincial council. On these grounds I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. The surcharge in the Transvaal is aimed at the man who is wilfully negligent or tries to evade payment of the tax. The existing legislation provides for the remission of penalties by the Administration where good cause is shown. Although I would have accepted the amendment if it had not been coupled with the poll tax, I am afraid that under the circumstances I cannot accept it.

I am very glad to hear the very sympathetic way in which the Minister has spoken. It would be perfectly easy to alter my amendment so far as the poll tax is concerned by deleting the words “tax on persons” and leave the penalty as regards the poll tax.

That would be an invidious distinction which no one in the House would be prepared to defend.

As to the difficulty the department says they have in collecting the tax, if the department collected the income tax due to the Union Government with only 7 per cent. surcharge they surely can do the same in regard to the provincial tax if they arranged with the provincial authorities to make both assessments simultaneously. So long, however, as you allow the department to levy the extreme penalty of 120 per cent. they will not go out of their way to put the matter right, but if they could not collect the tax with a 12 per cent. rate they would ask the provincial authorities to have both taxes collected together. We ought not to pander to that view, but we should insist that if they can collect the Union tax with the 7 per cent. surcharge they can collect the provincial tax with a surcharge of 12 per cent. The Minister says that if you put up a just cause for remission—I suppose a plea ad misericordiam— then you get a remission from the income tax commissioner. Yet the other day on the Customs Bill the Minister said this was the worst form of administration, and he would not allow an amendment from me on this very point. He put up a very strong case against my suggestion and he now puts up a contrary case in regard to the remission of income tax. That is a very unfair form of discrimination, because a man who knows of this will get a remission whilst another, who is ignorant of the provision, will be made to pay.

It is quite apparent that the time is rapidly approaching when the whole system of provincial taxation will have to be revised. It is perfect nonsense the way in which we are now taxed in all directions. It is true that under the South Africa Act certain taxing powers were given the provincial councils, but the time is rapidly coming when the people will not stand any longer the excessive burden of taxation they have to bear from different authorities. There are too many taxing machines—Union, Provincial, Municipal, etc.—and the burdens they impose upon the people are becoming intolerable. Why because I get a small interest on an investment of, say, £100 in the Transvaal should I be required to pay the Transvaal poll tax when I do not live in that province? I think the amendment is reasonable and I hope the Minister will at an early date look into the whole question of taxation.

I am not really prepared to have a discussion on the whole question of provincial taxation, and I am afraid I have to move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee to-morrow.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to certain matters in connection with railway rates, more especially the rates on wines and grape syrup for export. I raise the matter because I think we should get as low a rate on these commodities as on any other South African product for export, and I am going to give the Minister some very good reasons for it. Our chief competition is from Australia, and Australian wine is assisted to get into the English market by a subsidy of 1s. 9d. per gallon, which we have to compete with. I am going to show what little benefit the present railway export rate on wine is to us, and in addition we have to pay a very high rate for empties. For export purposes you require a central store for maturing and blending, and that store we have at Paarl, and the only benefit we get is the export rate from Paarl to the docks, which is 4d. per 100 lbs. The Wine Growers’ Co-operative Association, with its store at Paarl, draws its wine from all over the wine district, principally from Ashton. If you were to export direct from Ashton the export rate would be 1s. 2d. for 100 lbs., which is a fairly reasonable rate, but we have to draw the supplies to Paarl and pay the ordinary rate from Ashton to Paarl, which is 23d. per 100 lbs. Then we have to send from Paarl to the docks, which brings it to 27d. per 100 lbs., a very high rate. We have brought this matter to the notice of the Administration, but so far we have been unable to get any relief. I see the difficulty in the case of wine taken from Ashton to Paarl which might not be exported, but such a difficulty can be reasonably overcome. Where there is a will there is a way, and the way would be to grant a rebate when the wine is exported. Take the case of empty casks. In the case of export wine you cannot get the benefit of the cheap empty return rate for casks. And under present circumstances that rate can be made very little use of by the wine growers’ association; it can only be used by the wine merchant. We have to pay the higher rate in the case of casks forwarded to be filled. From the docks to Worcester the cost of casks to be filled comes to £2 a ton. If they were at the empty return rate it would be 8s. 5d. a ton. We are not able to avail ourselves of the empty return rate because if you are carrying good wine it has to be taken in one lot, whereas in the ordinary course, for cheap distilling wine, you send on a few casks and get a few returns and avail yourself of the empty return rate. It is a serious matter for the railways because the high rates on empty casks is losing an immense amount of traffic for the railways. If we could export direct from Ashton to the docks it would cost us very much less, but this cannot be done as our wines must first go to the maturing stores at Paarl. Take grape syrup. We have a factory at Stellenbosch and another one at Worcester, but we get no export rate and, in addition, we have to pay the heavy rate from the docks to Worcester on empties to be filled because we cannot send a consignment overseas and avail ourselves of the empty return rate by waiting until these empties are returned. Take maize. See what a cheap rate you have there and you have to store the maize for a considerable time at the docks. Wine is not stored at the docks; it goes straight on to the ships yet you have to pay more than double the rate on it; and heavy dock dues in addition. Wine in casks is the easiest traffic to handle. You could load five trucks of wine in the same time you would take for one truck of maize. Arrangements can be made to grant a rebate so that we could avail ourselves of the export rate from a place like Ashton to Paarl and then to the docks.

I should be glad if the Minister can tell me when the motor service will come into operation in the Sundays River Valley. Last year he said it would come as soon as possible. I should also like him to tell me what the estimate was for the bridge construction and the deviation at Two Streams. What was the original estimate and the original cost?

In the course of the debate the other evening the Minister issued a challenge to this side of the House to any member to get up and protest against the white labour policy.

I said move a reduction.

I move—

I do this in order to challenge the policy of the Minister on white labour. It is a policy which will only aggravate the disease which the Minister has set out to cure. It is a policy of administering an opium pill to cure a national cancer. It is a blind alley occupation without hope, and has doomed thousands to a life of poverty and their children will suffer in the same degree. The Minister never answers economic arguments. When he replies it is natural to expect he will reply in the same political strain as heretofore, giving us more of that political clap-trap with which he is so ready. He will tell us we have no care for these people and that all the virtues of altruism are on his side. But he will not answer the argument. It is easier to prey on the prejudices and ignorances of the people than it is to appeal with their intelligence. It is easier to employ balderdash of that kind and to tell the country that the Government is finding employment for these people where they could not get it elsewhere. This labour policy of the railway is closing down the avenues of employment which his colleague is trying to develop. The Minister of Railways has an extraordinary lack of appreciation of the economic condition of this country. He wants to run the railways as a political machine and not as a branch of our national individual life. He does not realize that the railways are being run on a scale out of proportion to our productive power. There is not a commodity produced in the factory or the mine or the farm which is not affected vitally by railway rates, and there is no country in the world where railway low rates can stimulate industry more than in South Africa. The capital cost of construction of our railways has been extremely small. I do not know of any other country in the world where the original cost of construction has been so small. We have not had to expend huge sums on the purchase of land or on the purchase of sites for stations and goods sheds. We have a system of railways which is the largest system in the world, I believe, under one control without any competitor to draw off traffic, officered by very excellent officials. We have therefore all the elements for running this huge industrial machine in the most efficient manner. I think this great machine which could be tempered for the industrial development of the country is being blunted by the policy which has been adopted. We desire on this side and I believe all hon. members in this House desire to do our utmost in our own way to uplift that large mass of people in this country who are living on a very low margin of subsistence, but we protest that the manner in which it is being attempted will not achieve that end. The real difference between us is a real difference in policy, a difference in economic outlook, and I want to state the facts as we see them. I invite a reply to this. The material well being of the people of this country depends upon the volume of national production, upon the national wealth, upon the national dividend. Any action which tends to increase that national income is to the advantage of everybody; any action which tends to decrease that national income is to the disadvantage of everybody. The fundamental consideration which should guide the Government in its action upon this matter is to increase that volume of national dividend. I ask this question, and it is a simple question: Do the railways at present administered tend to increase or decrease the volume of national income? That is a proposition I put to the Minister. From my review of the circumstances I unhesitatingly say that the present policy of the Government is tending to decrease that volume of national wealth and is saddling the railways with the expense of a political policy which is designed, and admittedly designed, not to stimulate the production of wealth, but, I very much fear, to stimulate the voting power. At any rate, it is a political policy. The two branches of our production, agriculture and mining, are virtually at a standstill, or at any rate so fluctuating year by year as to be increasing very slowly indeed. One of these industries depends upon the chance deposit of precious metal in rock and the other depends upon the vagaries of our climate. Both industries are constantly waging war on costs. That is a world question. Everywhere in the world industry is striving to bring down costs of production. The mines of the Union are getting deeper, as we know, every year, their reefs are getting smaller, and it is becoming a very acute question indeed with them, if their existence is to continue, that they should get down their costs by increased efficiency and better methods. We are told by the Government Mining Engineer only the other day that the mines can only continue on their present scale for any length of time provided they have three requisites—abundance of native labour, absence of industrial strife and increased efficiency. We can visualize this, that the absence of any one of these factors for any length of time is going to have a very serious effect on the whole industrial structure of this country. Take agriculture, if any one cared to study the rainfall charts which have recently been issued by the Irrigation Department, they would see at a glance the hazards to which the agricultural industry is subject. That industry is also up against the problem of lowering costs. It must have increased production and with the increase lower costs of production. Increased production cannot be brought about without reduction of costs. If I have stated the case correctly as regards the static condition of these two industries, agriculture and mining, one dependent upon the fortuitous occurrence of gold in the earth and the other upon an erratic climate, the only line of advance for this country is along the line of manufactures, which the Government has, and I give them credit for it, endeavoured to forward. Manufactures in this country have entirely outstripped agriculture and mining. I do not know whether the Minister is listening to this and whether he is giving his attention to it.

We have had it before.

It never seems to have sunk in. In 1915-’16 the total manufactures of this country were £44,750,000, and in 1923-’24 they were £87,000,000. Taking the value added in the process of manufacture, the total produced was £20,000,000 in 1915-’16, and it had grown to £44,500,000 in 1923-’24. Obviously the rate of increase in employment of the people working in industry, if it continues at that rate, will absorb all these thousands that the Minister is now putting into this useless employment on the railway. The same feature which is to be found in mining and manufacturing should also be found in the railways. The value added per head of employee in industries during the period to which I have referred rose between 1915-’16 and 1923-’24 by 21 per cent. while the wages rose from £196 per head of Europeans in 1915-’16 to £252 per head in 1923-’24. It is the same story—lower costs of production, higher wages. That is the story of the whole world, greater production and lower cost. With more production there is more wealth to be distributed. Everybody in the country is benefited. The railway has reversed that policy absolutely. The production of the railway is transportation and they are selling that transportation at a higher cost to the consumer than they were selling it at in 1909. According to statement No. 30 to be found in the report of the general manager of railways, the cost of conveying a ton of coal or goods in 1909 was 5s. 6d., while in 1925 it was 5s. 10d. In all these years of increased efficiency, of increased development, we have put up the costs of the railway by fourpence a ton for every ton carried. That fourpence a ton in the cost of conveying these goods may mean the difference between success and failure to thousands of concerns in the country. Consider another illuminating fact. The basis of all our industries in this country is coal. It is therefore of paramount importance to all our industries that coal should be obtained cheap and power should be obtained cheap. Yet, for every ton of coal which is carried on the railways to-day it bears an additional burden of 2s. a ton over what it bore in 1909. That seems to me a glaring illustration of the failure of the railways to carry out their administration on business principles. They are putting a burden on all the industries of this country of 2s. a ton in the coal necessary to produce their power. I claim in regard to these thousands of men the Minister always tells us about as being employed on the railways; if he devoted his attention in trying to foster the industries of the country by reducing railway rates they would all be absorbed in far better employment. The broad fact is this, that South Africa is living far above its means. The railway in itself is a sheltered industry, and it is drawing far more out of the volume of national production than it is entitled to. I do not know whether the Minister realizes it, but we are living very largely upon our capital, upon the loans we obtain every year from abroad. The volume of our spending power is very largely dependent upon that money which is borrowed. In 1913’14 we spent 10.45 per cent. on depreciation on the railways. To-day we have reduced that depreciation by 6.4 per cent. So that the cost of transportation is higher, but we put nothing aside to build up our railways. We neither improve our railways out of revenue, nor are we providing cheap transport for the consumer. The railways are becoming a huge taxing machine for social experiments to be paid for by struggling industry. That is not what was meant by Business Principles in the Act of Union. It cannot go on. If the Minister turns to the Economic Commission’s report he will find it states there that during the period from 1917 when Professor Leipold conducted his examination into the national wealth of the country, and the subsequent period of 1923, when the Economic Commission went over the ground—the increase in wealth had more than been absorbed by the expense of government—indeed four millions, in addition, had been swallowed up in the expense of government. That positively cannot go on. If the Government stopped borrowing that ten or fourteen millions we have every year, there is no doubt the country would suffer much in the same way as it suffered after the 1922 revolution, when the gold industry ceased to produce. Every year our interest charges are mounting higher and higher, which means a further burden on industry. It does not seem to be quite realized that the taxation that has to be paid in this country for the railways and elsewhere makes a raid upon money which has been set aside for the improvement of machinery and the development of industry, and consequently the employment of people in those industries is prevented by this taxation. We want to lift the poor white out of the rut into which he has fallen, but we do not want him to be employed in this feeble way. We have no objection to his being employed in the railways as a makeshift whilst industries can be created for him, but we do object to the struggling industries of this country being saddled with the cost of these political experiments on the railways. I have endeavoured to take up the Minister’s challenge, which he threw out the other night, and I challenge the Minister to reply to the arguments which I have put.

Gradually more and more information is being withheld from us. First the Minister started by refusing to give us the cost of his civilized labour policy on the railways, and then he withheld the cost of the branch line statistics. Now we find from the general manager’s bulletin, No. 112, he is withholding from us the actual cost of the working of the railways. Month by month we had the earnings and the cost. Now suddenly we find the cost is being withheld from us. It seems to me that whenever we criticize the Minister with regard to any particular policy, he immediately retaliates by withholding information regarding that policy. That is a very serious position. Parliament should have every possible information. Why the cost of running the railways is suddenly withheld I do not know, except, as I say, that we have been criticizing the increased cost compared with the increased earnings. I think the Minister should let us into the secret of why he is doing this, and let us know why we, who after all are a criticizing body, should be deprived of the opportunity of offering legitimate criticism in regard to the cost of the railways. Let us take the branch line statistics. I understand the Minister has said that in future they will not be available, and his reason is it costs something like £12,000 a year to prepare. We have been regularly supplied with these statistics. Suddenly it is discovered that it is costing the country £12,000 a year and it must be withheld from us. It is quite impossible for this House to decide on any new branch line or to criticize the working of lines unless we have the fullest possible statistics regularly supplied to us. The general manager, on the 3rd March last, stated—

What difference does that make to the country? He goes on—

There is nothing, as far as the statement by the general manager is concerned, about its being advisable to stop these statistics. He goes on to say—

That argument I cannot follow. Yet he himself says it is advisable from the point of view of the administration that these statistics should be taken up month by month. He gives as a reason for his change of opinion the working of the Avontuur line; and argues that because it does not and cannot pay, parliament will gain nothing by the publishing of the statistics. We agree with him that the development of the country should not be stopped merely because certain branch lines do not pay. Even then we have a right to know whether a branch line pays or not. The expenditure incurred in obtaining these statistics is not too great if we consider the advantages gained. I think we have a right to have every possible information at our disposal when we discuss any subject dealing with the railways and harbours. Against this poor evidence—“poor” because it is not conclusive—against supplying statistics regularly—we have the strong evidence of the Auditor-General, who draws attention to the fact that a long list of resolutions in favour of having the fullest information has been passed by committee after committee. Take the committee of 1913, paragraph 12 of the sixth report states—

In 1916 it was resolved—

In 1918 it is reported—

The general manager himself was in favour of publishing these statistics until quite lately, and in 1925 he wrote—

We know that in 1920 for the first time opposition was raised to the publication of these statistics, and the opposition was started ostensibly on account of the cost; but even supposing the costs were £11,000 or £12,000 a year, the general manager’s statement was that he estimated if we took the statistics every two months there would be a saving of £9,000, so that it will cost the country £3,000 a year at the outside, which is not a large sum to pay for parliament to be in possession of every possible detail of the working of the railways. In 1926 the general manager turns completely round, no doubt on account of the railway board’s finding, and he says he wants the matter decided without any reference to a select committee. He said—

In 1926 the select committee had to go into matters where to a very great extent wasteful expenditure was incurred owing to the administration not consulting their own technical advisers. [Time limit.]

I wish to support the last point raised by my hon. friend—the desirability of our being furnished with branch line statistics, and I am afraid the administration is acting on that maxim which my hon. friend mentioned—when the railways pay it does not matter, and when they do not pay statistics do not help. I join issue with my hon. friend; nothing but statistics will help when they do not pay—both as far as the administration and we are concerned. One of the most important questions of policy in regard to railways we have to determine is that of new construction—what new lines and where they should be built; and we find when the information is put before Parliament when the question of new construction is being discussed that the estimates of the railway board as to the results of the working of the new lines are likely to be very wide of the mark indeed,. and unless we have these branch line statistics kept and put before us we shall not be in a position to check these estimates. Glowing estimates will be put before Parliament as to new lines, but nobody is wiser whether the estimate is to be realized or not. The administration should keep and publish, not merely the branch line statistics but ton mile statistics. As far as I know there is no other accurate measure of whether a line is being worked efficiently or not but ton mile statistics. If you test it by the cost per train mile there is one train mile in one year and it is not the same train mile in another year. One year so many tons may be carried and the next year another number of tons. If the Minister does not like the look of the relation of expenditure to earnings he says I am carrying more low-rated traffic and the railways are doing more work but not getting so much for it. It is most important that we should have some criterion whether our railways are being worked with progressive efficiency, whether they are standing still, or going back. The Minister has a serious problem in front of him, because there is no doubt, whatever the reason may be, or whatever explanation there may be, year by year since the Minister took office the costs have been going up and up, and he ought to know why. He ought to know whether we are getting our money’s worth. There is no better test for that than ton-mile statistics. I will be told it is going to cost very much, and it is not worth it. Then there is another matter to which I would like to refer, which has been brought to my attention by the salaried staff association—the question of the re-employment of pensioners. The Act which was passed in 1925 deals with that, and it says that—

In the last number of the general manager’s bulletin the figures regarding the expenses and earnings for the year are omitted altogether, thus robbing them of their main interest. This appears to be in accordance with the policy of the Minister, who is, without doubt, the most secretive Minister we have ever had. This is a shame. The railways are the property of the people, who are entitled to the information, and with regard to branch line statistics, I don’t credit the statement that their preparation would cost £12,000, for I believe the figures are in the possession of the department, but the Minister will not publish them. He must have some figures, but he is simply afraid of publication. It is the same now in regard to the cost of white labour. Everything that can possibly be hidden from the public or the House is withheld by the Minister. I say that quite deliberately, and I hope the country will notice it. I believe the Minister wants to hide the cost of white labour, and I believe the branch line statistics are kept back for some special reason. The “Government Gazette” shows that during the past financial year the revenue showed an increase of £232,000, but the expenses increased by £1,160,000 as compared with the previous year. It is pretty well hopeless to expect a reduction of rates when the working expenses are going up every day. The charge for shipping citrus fruit has been increased from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. a ton. I have already pointed out how the expenses in connection with shipping fruit under the Control Board have increased; the rates in order to cover loss on space surrendered are extremely heavy. With the improved equipment at Table Bay docks it was expected the cost of shipping would be decreased.

If you get better service you ought to pay more.

There is an increased cost of £2,500.

Do you want us to run the cool stores at a loss?

No. Your costs for putting fruit on the ships is less than it was before you had this improved equipment, and you ought to give the shippers the benefit of it. The best policy is to reduce rates. Reducing rates was a material factor in bringing about prosperity in 1924-’25 but the Minister is doing the very opposite. It is grossly unfair that just at the time when we should have lower rates, they are increased. When is the Minister going to make the rate from Worcester to Fore Bay the same as it is to Port Elizabeth to Oudtshoorn? On the one section he charges branch line rates, and on the other section the regular normal rate.

I promised to consider the matter.

And reduce the rates on the Worcester section?

No.

Where is the justice of it, then?

That is another story.

This handicaps business through this port as compared with Port Elizabeth. As to coal rates a penny per ton extra is charged for loading coal with the new apparatus at Durban which was erected at a cost of £75,000.

That was agreed to at the time of their erection.

The idea of the apparatus was to save time with the trucks, and I am told it has been successful. I don’t believe in giving money away on coal rates, but on the other hand, I do not want to lose the trade. Let me quote from the Minister’s own magazine. For Durban last month for bunker coal there was carried 38,900 tons less, as well as a decrease of 25,800 tons of export coal. I would also like to point to another very ominous thing. It was stated in the papers this morning that there is a tremendous over-plus of coal in Great Britain which is bringing down the price. They will send coal to the Red Sea ports, to Colombo, and to Singapore cheaper than we can do from here. My hon. friend ought to keep his eye very carefully on that trade if he wants to keep it.

I am sorry I have to support this motion for the reduction of the Minister’s salary. I want my criticism to be constructive instead of destructive and the first thing I suggest is that all the stationery used by the Administration should be headed by an extract from section 127 of the Act of Union—

It would remind them occasionally of one of the main reasons for the existence of the members of the railway administration and their duty to the public. I want to show the Minister how he has failed in one or two instances to administer the system on business principles, and I want to show him how it can be administered on business principles. With regard to the export of maize, when we had a bumper crop exported from Cape Town we sent from the elevator 2,871,550 bags and from Durban 1,412,000 bags, and from East London 1,132,130 bags. I have been pleading for the installation of temporary appliances at East London. It was carried out at Durban with excellent results pending the completion of the elevator. In answer to a question I put last year, the Minister told me that these appliances were intended to fill in the gaps in connection with the export of grain before the completion of the elevator. The cost of installing this temporary appliance was £7,500 and the cost of export per ton was 8.32d. The cost by ordinary methods in bags in East London was 19.34d. per ton. About a shilling was saved on each ton through installing this temporary appliance, so that by dealing with the export of maize from East London with a temporary appliance there would have been a saving of £5,660 in one year. I invite the Minister’s attention to this. It is a sound business principle. A whole complete set of temporary appliances should be established for £20,000 and it is real good business to make an annual profit of 27 per cent. on this. Then another considerable saving would be effected by the construction of a turning basin and I think the Minister will admit that a saving of £10,000 is good business on an expenditure of £35,000 which could be effected by employing the lighters elsewhere. Furthermore my opinion is that the expenditure would not really be £35,000. It would be less, because the work could be done gradually by the dredgers in the port when they could not dredge outside in rough weather. I cannot see why the Minister cannot apply these elementary principles and why he cannot see what a great advantage it would be to the administration. Then there is the question of the quay wall at East London. 1,000 feet of the existing wooden wall have been condemned and the work of replacing it with a substantial wall must be done sooner or later. The estimated cost of this, I believe, which will have to be faced eventually, is only £50,000. The Minister, when I brought this subject up on the last occasion when I spoke on railway matters, was quite obdurate as to East London Harbour improvements. I suppose he will continue to be obdurate. I don’t know why. He may change. When he returns from overseas he will, no doubt, have a very much enlightened mind. The country is crying out at the neglect of this port and if I may say the favouritism—I cannot think of a better word at the moment—the favouritism, or rather the lack of favour displayed towards East London.

You forget that bridge.

The bridge! That is not a harbour improvement.

No, but it is a very big expenditure.

Yes, there is £116,000 put down for a bridge of which a considerable portion will be reclaimed from the municipality.

One-third.

And a very substantial contribution it is, too. That bridge is absolutely necessary for railway purposes, and the only pity is that it was not undertaken long-ago. I would remind the Minister that not a penny is to be spent on that bridge this year. But what about the £4,608,000 that is to be spent on harbour improvements in the future, of which East London’s share is £34,000? How can the Minister defend that? These are improvements very essential to enable him to deal with the enormous quantities of goods and fruit that he will have to handle in the near future. I wonder how the Minister will face the citrus growers presently, when there is a glut in Cape Town. There is a very necessary provision to be made for dealing with those large quantities of citrus fruit in the future. These farmers are the backbone of the country. About 20 000,000 trees. I understand, are in now. [Time limit.]

I was busy referring to the very strong evidence given before the select committee in regard to the statistics of branch lines. It was shown to us very clearly that in no other part of the world where they have State-owned railways, are these statistics withheld from the public. The Auditor-General himself made some very strong remarks about the suggested change. He held that by this change Parliament is going to be deprived of all information in regard to these branch lines, and that we will be quite unable, in the future, to decide upon any new scheme of railway construction. I suggest that the object of that change is to keep us uninformed. I make that suggestion deliberately because there can be no other reason, really, when there is a cost of only £3,000 per annum to the country. I gave one example as a reason why this information was withheld. Let me give another. The Railway Board in their recommendation that certain nine branch lines should be constructed, said that they would produce in revenue £131,000 annually. Actually they produced only £78,000, or a shortfall of £52,000. If we do not have all the statistics in regard to the branch lines we naturally will not be able to decide whether those lines shall be constructed or not, and I put it to the Minister when we have a case like this, where in one year there was a shortfall of no less than £52,000, that that perhaps is one of the reasons why statistics are withheld from us. It is contemplated in the South Africa Act that where a branch line is built against the advice of the Railway Board, the loss must be made good out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That shows clearly that, unless in the opinion of the Railway Board, a branch line is going to be payable, the Railway Administration should not undertake the construction. That is the reason why that clause was put into that Act. But unless you give the statistics you must make up your mind that no one can decide whether the administration or the consolidated revenue fund is going to be responsible for the loss. To me it seems very strange that this information should be withheld from us. We must accept the figure of £12,000 but it seems to me that it is an unnecessarily large figure because it must always be remembered that in regard to the South-West Africa line and all private lines statistics must be kept and the loss cannot be recovered by the administration unless they have very carefully prepared the statistics. I am connected with one of these branch lines and every month we get full statistics. If the Government has to do that in regard to these lines what extra cost will there be to take out statistics in respect of the other branch lines’ I am afraid there is some other reason why we are not getting this information. It cannot be purely on account of cost. Supposing it did cost £12 000 a year, we might be able to save a £1,000,000 by having all this information before us, and I do hope the Minister is going to reconsider the position. I know when he was in opposition he used to object very strenuously in regard to certain charges against these branch lines, and quite rightly. Let him now make use of his arguments and put them into practice. Give the credit to these lines that he thinks should be given and then let us learn what the position is in regard to them and that will enable us to say whether or no further development should be undertaken. I do hope we are going to have the old order restored. Gradually we are having all this taken away from Parliament and very soon we shall find that the railways are being run without any consultation with Parliament.

I want to refer to a matter which to me seems of considerable importance to the Administration, but which, judging from the estimates, is not so regarded by the Minister. That is, the question of the Ladysmith Flood Protection Scheme, designed to protect not only the town but the railway line and property against damage by flood waters. The earthwork approaches to the bridge across the river are invariably washed away, resulting in a dislocation of traffic, the loss from which is estimated at something like £20,000 a day. The municipality of Ladysmith submitted a tentative scheme to the assistant general manager, Durban, providing for the making of a channel from a given point to a given point lower down which involved an expenditure of something like £15,000, the cost to be shared by the council and the Administration on the 50-50 basis. Arising out of that proposal the assistant general manager submitted for the approval of the council another proposal, a far more expensive one, involving an expenditure of £29,000. This proposal, it was agreed on all sides, was the better proposal of the two. That proposal involved the expropriation of certain private land which would be needed to make this channel and the council undertook to provide this land as well as pay the £7,500 originally offered. The original proposal was on the basis of a 100 foot span bridge and the alternative proposal was on the basis of a 200 foot span, which accounts for the difference in the cost of the two schemes. The municipality approved of the scheme and were quite prepared to go on with it. In fact, I was asked to expedite the matter by urging the General Manager of Railways to make provision in the estimates for the necessary expenditure. The Town Clerk of Ladysmith in his letter to me said: “The Mayor is very anxious for the work to be proceeded with as soon as possible and he desires me to ask you to be good enough to interview Sir William Hoy with the object of getting him to make the necessary provision for the work on the estimates.” I interviewed the General Manager, who said he would use his best efforts to make provision on the estimates, but I am sorry to see that no provision is made. Unless financial provision is made at once another wet season will soon be upon us, with the possibility of a flood and the resultant loss and damage to railway property. The Administration will lose more probably than the whole of its share of the cost of the scheme. There is another matter I would like to raise. Ladysmith, which is admittedly an important railway centre, is not receiving any consideration at all in these estimates. I understood the Administration had recommended that provision be made for a new goods shed. Has no recommendation come to the Minister that such provision be made? At the present time we have a goods shed which has done duty to my knowledge for the past 40 years; it is much behind the times and quite inadequate for the town’s present requirements. I find nothing on the estimates for that goods shed. I was informed on good authority that a sum of £8,000 was recommended for the extension of the electric locomotive sheds, but I find no provision made on the estimates for the expenditure of that sum. What is the reason for not making provision in accordance with the recommendations of the Administration? Another matter which I should like to allude to is a grievance which I represented to the Minister in the form of a letter earlier in the session on behalf of the men in the electric locomotive sheds at Ladysmith, who claim to be entitled under Regulation 70 of the Employees’ Staff Regulations equally with the men in the steam sheds to the dirt money allowance of 1s. 6d. per day. The position is that you have steam and electric workshops side by side, the steam shed men getting 1s. 6d. a day as district allowance and the electric shed men receiving nothing, although the soiling effect on the wearing apparel of working in the one shed is just as great as in the other. The reply I received after considerable delay was that the Minister regretted his inability to accede to the request for the payment asked for by the electric men on the ground that such payments were made at the discretion of the Administration where circumstances justify it and that investigations into the conditions at Diamant disclosed the fact that there was no justification for payment of the allowance. The Administration evidently base their refusal on the ground that the matter is entirely in the discretion of the general manager, and that is where I differ from the Administration. Regulation No. 70 states that an allowance of 1s. 6d. for each period of 24 hours or portion thereof is payable to fitters, boiler makers and improvers actually employed on running repairs in the transportation running sheds. The men employed in the electric sheds are employed on running repairs in the transportation running sheds and are therefore entitled equally with the steam men to this 1s. 6d. allowance. Under this rule no discretionary power is vested in the general manager or the Administration. The rule makes it obligatory on the Administration to pay this allowance. This is a real grievance, and the men are very dissatisfied with the reply from the Administration. The men feel that they are not being fairly treated and are smarting under a sense of injustice. They feel that they are entitled to the same treatment as the steam men. Unless the Minister does justice to these men I can assure him he has not heard the last of this matter. The amount at stake is not a large one. The men feel that the matter has never been properly investigated by the department and I would ask the Minister to at least cause a thorough investigation to be made, when I feel sure he will appreciate the justness of the claim put forward by these electric men.

I have on previous occasions referred to the absence of natural transport facilities in South Africa, where we have to depend entirely on railways. The employment of white labour on railway construction work must inevitably result in the creation of a most expensive transport system. I do not think the Minister can claim to be running the railways on strictly business lines. It is extraordinary that the Minister should refuse to give us the approximate difference in the cost of the employment of white as against native labour. He tells us that white labour is part of the system, and is therefore not prepared to reveal to us what the difference in cost is. A further argument advanced was that the more intelligent labour of the white man was always calculated to produce better results on account of better methods and labour-saving appliances. We are always going to have pick and shovel work in this country. The natives are specially cut out for that work, but now we are forcing whites into this field of labour for which many of them are physically unfitted, nor do I think it right to use this expensive class of worker to do that which can be more economically and cheaply done by natives. What chance has any industry established up-country to compete in the world’s markets if they are going to be strangled by expensive transport to the coast? Another point: it is generally accepted that the consumer usually pays the cost of transport. Let us consider the position of the wool grower up-country. He has to bear the cost of transport to the coast and compete in the open markets of Europe, and as a consumer has likewise to bear the cost of goods brought up from the coast. The Minister’s great plea for white labour is that we must find work for the thousands of poor whites in the country. Surely they could be more profitably engaged in other ways, but in any case why should he single out one particular section of the community to bear the burden? It is unfair, and unjust. I protest strongly against a policy of this kind. It is not in the interests of the country, the country cannot stand it; it is only reasonable that if we have to find employment for the poor whites, the general taxpayer should contribute towards it, it should come from general revenue.

I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the question of the development of the coastal traffic trade. I think the Minister, possibly, has had this matter already brought to his notice, but in case be is not fully conversant with the facts, I take this opportunity of bringing this question to his notice. He must realize in this country we have no locally-owned vessels trading round the coast, and there is quite an appreciable amount of sea-borne inter-port traffic existent in South Africa, and I would direct the Minister’s attention to an abstract from the Customs blue book, showing the tonnage carried between the various ports of the Union in 1926. In 1926 in Cape Town there were 67,259 tons landed and 56,589 tons shipped; at Port Elizabeth 27,698 tons landed, 5,690 tons shipped; East London 31,951 tons landed, 5,617 tons shipped; Durban 20,113 tons landed, 105,318 tons shipped. The total inter-port tonnage carried on the coast amounted to 179,149 tons landed, 184,938 tons shipped. The total number of vessels which are South African owned is 9, with a tonnage of under 6,000. It seems rather extraordinary that a country such as South Africa which has a great deal of inter-port sea-borne traffic should have such a small number of locally-owned vessels. In America, Australia and in Europe and the various countries of the world the attitude of the respective governments is to foster and to encourage their coastal traffic, but in that matter we seem to have been entirely neglectful. When we come to examine the position, I do not think one needs to look very far to find out the reason why South African owned vessels are at a distinct disadvantage in the carriage of inter-port traffic. The overseas vessels, the mail boats, intermediate boats and cargo boats are in a position to be able to command a fixed berth at the various ports of call. The locally-owned vessels have to take their chance. There is no berthing accommodation allotted to them, with the result that shippers who have to forward their goods to the various ports are unable to send their goods in advance. In respect of Durban in particular, the position is that the berthing accommodation there is already inadequate, particularly in so far as deep water berths are concerned. Further than this, vessels coming in have to remain probably at anchorage or at any rate they have to go to various berths according to the berths that are available at the time when they enter the harbour. That is not the only disadvantage under which they suffer. Take for instance, the duties of customs duties and bunker coal rates. The mail boat or intermediate boat or any vessel from overseas is able to take in stores without duty. In the case of the locally-owned vessels in regard to paints, etc., they are charged 25 per cent. ad valorem duty on all the stores that they take on board. In addition to that, coming to other stores such as white lead and red lead, they have to pay in the vicinity of 20 per cent. duty over and above what the overseas vessels have to pay. It does seem unfair that these advantages are obtained by interests oversea which do not spend and do not devote the large volume of money earned in this country to the interests of the country. If we were only to place the coastal vessels on the same footing as the overseas vessels, I think it would be safe to say that a very large amount of money would be spent in this country for the benefit of the country. Not only is the question of customs duty a very serious item but let us consider the question of bunker rates on coal. In the instance of a vessel registered overseas the rate which they pay to-day is 160½ pence per ton for 2,000 tons. If that vessel takes 3,000 tons of coal the rate is 160 pence per short ton. It may be that the vessel is trading with the far east and they then enjoy the advantage of a material rebate of somewhere in the vicinity of 32 pence per ton on any coal which is not consumed over the rate of 2,000 tons. Therefore, the vessel taking 3,000 tons of coal will pay £2,247 for railway rates, but supposing it only consumes 2,000 tons on the voyage a rebate of £424 would be allowed on the balance, which is treated as export coal. In the case of the coastal vessel there is no rebate at all in so far as bunker coal is concerned. Therefore, the Government could well afford to pay more attention to the development of coastal traffic, because we have the “General Botha” training young South Africans and when they reach the stage of going to sea they have to join lines which take them away from the land of their birth and so they are unable to retain their interest in this country, and I would commend to the serious attention of the Minister the development of the coastal trade traffic.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is thoroughly satisfied with the Tender Board? If so, why is it that so many leading firms refuse to send tenders to this Board? I have tried to find out what is the reason, and there seemed to be an impression, rightly or wrongly, that the lowest tender was very often refused without adequate reason. That is, apparently, their opinion. I am told of an instance where the Railway Department called for tenders for a motor car. The tender of a local firm was refused, and it was decided to import one. When it arrived, it was sent to be erected by the firm who had originally tendered, and when it was handed over its cost was more than the original tender. The Auditor-General has called the attention of the Railway Department to the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent without calling for tenders at all, and this makes the matter of sufficient importance to engage our serious attention. With regard to a local matter—I refer to the overhead bridge at Mooi River—this is urgently required. There is no communication between the goods shed and the railway platform, and it is hardly reasonable to expect men to go three-quarters of a mile to the public bridge. As a consequence, people are daily risking their lives crossing the line. This bridge has been repeatedly promised, but its erection has always been put off for some reason or other. Then there is the matter of a goods shed at Elandskop, which has to supply a large hinterland. Increased accommodation is urgently required here; why cannot this be provided?

Before the Minister adopted his white labour policy, did he call for a report from the Railway Board; did the Board go into the economic aspect, or did they merely take their cue from the Minister, following him because it was a policy purely based on political grounds? We know that these appointments are the recompense of party politicians, and are not as was intended filled by men who have special knowledge of railway matters, and are strictly impartial.

I want to deal at once with the point raised by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) and other hon. members with regard to the position of the Railway Board. All I can say at this stage is that the policy was adopted when the late Mr. Rissik, Mr. Orr and Mr. Wilcocks were members of the board. They report to Parliament annually on matters of railway policy, and they have on no occasion complained that they were not in accord with the Government’s policy. This is a complete reply to my hon. friend. Naturally I would not have adopted this policy without consulting the board. All these matters are brought before the board, and their advice is taken. The late Mr. Rissik was cordially in agreement with that policy.

Has the board gone into the economic aspect of the matter?

Undoubtedly.

Is their report available?

The hon. member should have raised this three years ago, when the policy was initiated. Two of the present members were not members of the board when that policy was initiated. Mr. Wilcocks was a member of the board, but the other two members of the board are not now with us.

Is there a report approving of it?

There is the fact that they did not report against the policy. I cannot say that they have in so many words, indicated their approval in any report, but the fact of their not disapproving of it is a clear indication that they were in accord with the policy. I am glad the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has moved an amendment expressing disapproval of the policy of the Government with regard to the employment of civilized labour, and I would ask the leader of the Opposition to press the matter to a division, so as to test the feeling of the House on this specific amendment.

The House is not the country.

All this is simply preliminary to going to the country at a later stage. Let us see where the Opposition stand. Some hon. members say they are in favour of this policy. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller), I don’t think it is quite fair to say that nothing has been done to encourage coastal shipping, for we have several shipping companies doing business in a small way between the different ports, and the Administration has taken steps to assist them. When the hon. member raised the matter in consultation with other gentlemen concerned, the Administration went into the matter very carefully, and I am afraid that we cannot do anything further at the present stage.

Does not the Railway Department cut rates against them?

That is one aspect of the question. Then the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has raised the question of the tender board, and said he heard some of the leading firms are not prepared to tender, because they did not consider the conditions to be satisfactory. I am surprised to hear that. It has not come to my notice. If my hon. friend will give me the information, I will have it looked into; but my experience of the work of the tender board is that it has been done excellently, and I have never heard a word of suspicion with regard to its work. The lowest tender is not always accepted. We cannot always accept the lowest tender. Many things have to be taken into consideration. The financial standing of a firm might not be good, and in the responsible work of the tender board they are bound to look at facts of that sort. Then the hon. member mentioned the overhead bridge at Mooi River and says it has been promised. I am prepared to consider the matter on the basis of the local body paying half the cost.

You cannot ask the farmers to pay half the cost of the railway bridge.

If once we depart from that principle I can only say, in all sincerity to my hon. friends, that the whole position of financing these works would become impossible. The railway administration could not stand the expense. Hon. members have pressed me to be careful in regard to capital expenditure and they must bear this in mind. I want to ask those hon. members who have pressed for more capital expenditure whether they realise that the proposals put up this year by the officers on all systems amounted to close upon £14,000,000. That is the reply to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), who mentioned many laudable things. We simply had to cut them out. Hon. members who think that we should make a small cash provision on this year’s estimates and carry the balance over don’t seem to realise what a big carry-over means to the railway administration. If the local body will deal with the matter on the basis indicated, I will consider it. I do not say we shall be able to provide the money, but we shall give it consideration. With regard to Elandskop goods shed, I will have it looked into. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has raised the question of flood protection at Ladysmith. I shall go into that matter and see if we can do something in that regard next year providing agreement is reached and the money is available, I have no information with regard to the goods shed, but I will have it looked into. We are making provision for £6,000 for the extension of the Daimana repair shed, item 414. The hon. member also referred to the question of the allowance to fitters and boilermakers employed in the electric loco, sheds and payment of the dirt allowance. The information which I have—and I may say it is confirmed by the officers operating the electric locos—is that the work is not of such a nature as to justify the payment of the dirt allowance. Under those circumstances, I cannot agree to the payment of that amount. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has asked me about the figures in connection with ton mileages. I want to point out to the hon. member that unless you have ton mileage for all classes of commodities and for different lines, including branch lines, you are not going to get very far forward. Then the hon. member for Capetown (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and other hon. members have pressed me again in regard to this question of publishing the cost of civilised labour. I want to give all the information I can in regard to the policy of the department. I have attempted to do so and I am afraid I cannot carry the matter any further. I can only repeat again that my hon. friends have not attempted to meet the point that the only manner in which you can present the account would be to give the cost of native labour and on the other hand the cost of civilised labour. I have asked them, how could you calculate the greater measure of efficiency which we are getting on account of employing civilised labour?

Your officers have done that already, and they can give us the figures.

They cannot. My hon. friend does not appreciate evidently that the efficiency is increasing all the time. Let me call attention to a statement which has been sent to me and which was made by an officer controlling a large number of these white labourers. He is Mr. Pigg, the stationmaster at Germiston, and the statement was published in the “Star” on the 26th May, having been made by him as a member of the employment exchange at Germiston. He said that the experimental stage was now over, and that it was a great success. The men employed by him regarded the work as dignified, and he had never heard the remark—“we cannot do it.” He also said that he was convinced that whites would give better value than natives. I ask hon. members to face the facts. The previous Government made every attempt, no doubt, to deal with this question, and what was the result? Did they eliminate these unfortunate conditions? No, they did not. We have made another attempt, and surely we are entitled to some support from the House.

You have not eliminated the conditions.

I have never said so. But I do say we have made an honest attempt to tackle this question. Mr. Pigg goes on to say—

Mr. B. Frazer, of the Chamber of Commerce, said the committee appreciated the efforts of Mr. Pigg in having secured work for so many of the applicants. I applaud that sentiment. The other point raised is with regard to branch line statistics. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said that I am a most secretive Minister, that I do not want to give information. Let me again repeat, and I hope it will be final, that at any time any member desiring information with regard to the result of a particular branch line I am prepared to give that information.

Why can’t you give it to the public at once?

Because I don’t want to spend the £12,000 unnecessarily. The point of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that when we are dealing with a new construction programme we want the results of existing branch lines I thoroughly appreciate. But you can have it. We have all the figures available, only these figures are not tabulated, but they can be tabulated at any moment when the House wants them.

Why not let us have them regularly.

Because I want to save money. I want the railways to be run on business principles.

You have given the whole show away. You have the figures and you won’t publish them.

I have not got the figures tabulated. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Capetown (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) say he did not accept the statement that the cost would be between £11,000 and £12,000. I can only say the chief accountant gave that figure in his evidence. Why should the hon. member dispute the figures of Mr. Reed?

We decline to go across to your office.

I am sorry, but members have an opportunity in the House by the way of asking questions if they do not want to go to my office. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has dealt with temporary applications for the export of maize at East London. I have said that at the present moment I am not prepared to provide them. I do not think there is any justification for it. The terminal elevators should justify themselves before we embark on temporary appliances. He has also referred to the turning basin. I find it impossible to make the necessary provision this year. We are having the matter investigated, and when the investigations are completed we will deal with the whole matter. The hon. member says we are providing nothing for the bridge, but he will find we are providing £6,000 from the renewals fund. As to export rates on wines, which was raised by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) I can only repeat the figures I gave him privately. The export rates for wine are 2s. 8d. per ton as against 5s. local consumption up to 25 miles, from 25 miles 6s. 8d. and 10s. respectively, 50 miles 9s. 4d. and 16s. 8d. and to Worcester, 110 miles 16s. and £1 13s. 4d. I know my hon. friend’s point is that wine is sent from outside stations to Paarl, but he will appreciate the difficulty. How can we keep control of this wine when it enters the cellars of the purchaser?

Where there is a will, there is a way.

I would be glad if he would indicate where the way is, but I am afraid it is not possible.

You do it for maize.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has asked me with regard to a bridge and deviation at Two Streams. I have no information on that point, and if he will give me further information I will reply to his question. As to the increased charge for shipping citrus, I am looking into that. I think the officers raised the price to get a better return from the cold store.

I have one or two important matters with which I should like to deal, but, as the hour is late, perhaps the Minister will accept a motion to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Let us dispose of this one vote, and then we can adjourn., Let the hon. member bring up his point now.

We are discussing 28 millions, and we have been only seven hours.

I am sorry the Minister did not deal more fully with the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who developed a line of argument with regard to the employment of European labourers which surely should have protected him against the accusation the Minister sought to bring against him—that he was endeavouring to accuse the Minister of employing these people purely for political ends. The hon. member for Zululand indicated the deleterious effect of the employment of poor whites as railway labourers on the policy of the development and encouragement of industries. I draw the Minister’s attention to the dairy industry, which is one which is being affected by the depression in Natal, owing to a variety of circumstances. The dairy industry of the midlands of Natal has reached a stage in which the farmers are losing thousands of pounds per month through a price-cutting war in Durban, and they have appealed in vain to the Railway Department to some reduction in rates, yet those rates are susceptible of considerable reduction. I hope the Minister will consider the position of the dairy industry, because it is the mainstay of the farmer who is dependent on mixed farming in the Natal midlands. The dairy companies are in a very unsatisfactory position and the Farmers’ Co-operative Dairy Society is suffering severely. I invite the Minister’s attention to the incongruity of the position in regard to the employment of European labourers. When the present Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were in opposition, they always told us that the employment of European labourers on the railways and relief works was the exploitation of white men at Kafir wages, although the then rate of pay compared very favourably with the present rate. On the railways at present the pay for white unskilled labour per day is: Under 18 years of age, 3/-; 18 years, 3/6; 19 years, 4/-; 20 years, 4/6; 21 years, single, 5/6; married, 6/-. A house allowance of 1/- a day is granted to white labourers of over 21 years of age when they are not provided with free quarters. We have had the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs declaring that no natives can live decently on a lower wage than 1/- an hour, and this has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among the European railway labourers in Natal. I have received well-written letters from men with good civil and military records complaining of the conditions under which, as European labourers, they are obliged to work in Durban. One has sent a duplicate of his pay sheet, showing that a man between thirty and forty years of age is receiving in the neighbourhood of £5 per month after deducting his superannuation contributions. It is pitiable to expect a man to live on such an amount and to do the strenuous work he is performing., Yet we remember how we were accused of exploiting people at kafir wages by those who are now in Ministerial position, and who do not wince at all, but, on the contrary, feel perfectly complacent that men should be employed at this identical rate of pay, whilst they themselves declare that no native can live decently at less than 1s. an hour. I want to invite the Minister’s attention to another matter, and that is with regard to what he laid down in connection with the bilingual qualifications of railway officials. He said on Friday evening his department did not accept the certificate of an English medium scholar who had passed Standard 7, with Afrikaans as a subject, as proof of a sufficient knowledge of Afrikaans, and the same thing applied in regard to the Afrikaans-speaking scholar who had passed Standard 7 taking English as a subject. I have reason to complain of the Minister’s ruling, because, when the Railway Service Amendment Bill was introduced by the Minister himself in 1925, I moved an amendment which would have protected admission to the service of either candidate who had passed Standard 7 at a school examination. It would have allowed the admission of any man who had passed Standard 7 in a school examination. In my speech I said the amendment was brought forward in consequence of the reply of the Minister, who had said that, in his view, the bilingual examination required to be passed was not higher than Standard 7. Now, after considerable discussion, he agreed to accept Standard 7, not for inclusion in the Act, but he distinctly said he was prepared to put it in the regulations. Then, he said, it would not be in the Act, and could be dealt with by the House from time to time if the regulations were changed. [Time limit.]

I would like to refer briefly to the question of civilized labour. The Minister has told us repeatedly that civilized labour is as efficient and less costly than native labour. I have a record here from the Labour Department which gives some interesting figures. Recently the Public Works Department framed an estimate of the cost of levelling of the hospital site, and, according to the estimate, if based on native labour, it would be £35,000, but if based on civilized labour it would be £48,857, a difference of 37 per cent., and I think that was a very fair estimate. If the Minister would trouble to trace the railway position, he would probably find the new construction on railway lines is costing 37 per cent. more than if done with civilized labour, and I think that cost should be debited against the present revenue and not to capital expenditure, and thus passed on to posterity. I would like to refer the Minister to a certain report appearing in a local paper of an interview between the unemployed and the Prime Minister, at which the Minister of Railways was present. For his information I will read the report—

If the facts alleged in this report are correct, then it must be quite clear to the House that the statements which the Minister has so often repeated in this House that civilized labour is no more expensive and more efficient than native labour are without any foundation. That the native is not only cheaper, but actually the more efficient labour.

In reference to the bilingual question, I wish to make my impression perfectly clear as to the qualification that was insisted upon. On 27th May, 1925. I said—

The Minister of Railways and Harbours was present, and did not demur to that, but now he comes forward and would have us understand that his definite assurance cannot be carried out.

Will you allow me to explain that point? I repeat that Std. 7 was agreed to by me as the standard of knowledge in regard to either English or Afrikaans, which would be acquired. We were informed, after consultation, that a knowledge of English as a subject where Afrikaans was taken as the medium in passing Std. 7 was not sufficient and did not comply with the terms of the Act. I have fully carried out my promise to the House that Std. 7 will be accepted; but if the second language is taken only as a subject, then an additional examination must be passed; and that additional examination is based on Std. 7. In regard to the clerks who are already in the service, the examination in that case is in the hands of the Education Department. They have definite instructions that the standard of the examination papers is to be Std. 7 and no higher. Surely the hon. member will accept my statement that I have no intention to depart from the statement I gave to the House that Std. 7 will be accepted. I do not intend departing from that undertaking I gave, but I hope hon. members will be fair and admit I am bound to follow the advice I get from the Education Department with regard to this matter. The hon. member has dealt with the question of rates on dairy produce. Our rates are not too high. I am afraid I cannot consider any reduction. As regards the question of the rate of pay of European labourers, the hon. member must not forget that these men, more especially the juniors, are in training. They are being trained as checkers, shunters, porters and clerks and other grades. It is true that the adults are paid 5s. plus a free house, and they have all the other privileges. It is difficult to say what the amount is in actual cash, but I can place it at from 6s. 6d. to 7s. The younger men are getting valuable training, and I do not think, under those circumstances, it is unfair to say to them, “During your training you should not expect a high wage from the department.”

When they are employed as brush hands in the paint shops, surely you ought to pay them more.

Of course, if they are doing the work of a qualified brush hand they will be paid for that. It all depends on the class of work they are doing. I am dealing with the general principle. We have now introduced a system by which these juniors are given a thorough training and I have no doubt we shall be able to train these young men and make excellent railwaymen of them.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he realizes that this new interpretation with regard to the bilingual qualification means that you preclude from the railway service every person educated in Natal because we have no Dutch medium schools in that Province. It is the effect I have said all through the Minister intended to bring about. I cannot conceive why he should affect surprise at the ruling of a legal man when it was he himself who introduced the Act. The Minister now comes forward and would seek to place the responsibility upon the legal advisers, a responsibility that is entirely his own. It is within his own power to introduce a law which would have allowed a man with that qualification to enter the service. The effect of this is disqualification out of the service—unfortunate children who have no Dutch medium schools to attend. It is quite certain that they will not pass the examination the Minister put to them.

The Education Department deals with the position. I have no desire to keep these men from receiving their increment. I have done everything possible to assist them. Why should my hon. friend make a suggestion that we are not sympathetic?

Party capital.

You gave us the name of the examiners some time ago. I thought they were employed in your department.

The position in the past was that there were two examiners who framed the papers, but I have now abolished the departmental examiners altogether. The papers are being framed by the Education Department, which awards the marks. Standard VII is not high—in the Public Service it is the matric.

I am merly pointing out what the effect will be.

My hon. friend must not blame me for the law.

I am sorry to have to press this matter at so late an hour, but I brought the matter up when it was in the Minister’s own hands, in 1925, and he could have legislated. The people on whose behalf we are striving for some safeguard have now come back on us, and said—

I understand a promotion committee was agreed to by the Minister last October, but promotions of a very important kind have taken place in which the committee has evidently not been consulted. One case was that of Mr. Klopper who was promoted without reference to the committee. The station masters and clerks in higher grades who have worked loyally for the department feel most acutely the promotion of men whom they regard as junior, to the position of acting district inspector. I hope the Minister will not overlook the remonstrances of these men. It is all very well to say they should not communicate their grievances to members of Parliament. I think on the whole the railwaymen are inclined to regard the Minister as their friend, and I hope he will not forfeit that feeling by making appointments which will antagonise the staff.

All appointments to positions under £600 a year do not pass through my hands. District inspectors are appointed by divisional officers, and however much I like to protect all classes of employees, I cannot do so unless they make use of their right to appeal. If a particular station master thinks he should have been appointed instead of another man, he should appeal. The channels of appeal are open at the present moment, but I cannot take cognisance of these matters unless they come forward through the proper channels.

Did a station master complain at the last meeting?

It has not come up to me. Probably you are thinking of the acting appointment at Ladysmith. I have had no appeal from any station master.

Amendments put and negatived.

Head, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.